(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.03.22 2017나5112 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.03.22 2017나5112

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3.The ancillary.

Reasons

1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” means the reasons why the party was unable to observe the period, even though he/she fulfilled the duty of care to conduct the litigation,

However, in a case where the original judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without fault. If the Defendant, without knowing the existence of the lawsuit, was sentenced from the beginning, and the Defendant became aware of such fact only after the original judgment was served to the Defendant by public notice and became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal due to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). B.

According to the records, the court of first instance may recognize the fact that the defendant served a duplicate of the complaint against the defendant and the notice of the date for pleading by public notice, and served the plaintiff's claim on January 19, 2017, and served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice on January 21, 2017, and the defendant knew that the original copy of the judgment was issued on April 26, 2017 and the judgment of the court of first instance was pronounced on May 8, 2017.

C. If so, the defendant's appeal to supplement the judgment of the court of first instance is lawful, since it was filed within two weeks from the date when the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance became known to have been served by public notice

2. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2005다27195 판결

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2020.08.27 2019나14547

-부산지방법원 2019.03.15 2018나58868

-수원지방법원 2020.12.10 2019나72045

-서울북부지방법원 2014.12.23 2014나2479

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.10 2018나77786