(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나1000

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나1000

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when he/she

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

On May 13, 2013, the court of first instance served a notice of complaint and the date of pleading on the defendant by public notice and declared that the original copy of the judgment was served on the defendant on May 21, 2013 by means of service by public notice, and became aware of the fact that the defendant applied for perusal or duplication to this court, and the judgment of first instance was served on the defendant by means of service by public notice on April 4, 2019, and that the fact that the original copy of the judgment was served on the defendant was submitted on April 11, 2019 is significant in this court.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from the time the cause ceases to exist. Thus, the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant on February 26, 2019 based on the judgment of this Court 2013 Ghana1087 lending case.

참조판례

-대법원 2013. 1. 10. 선고 2010다75044,75051 판결

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2019.12.13 2018나29742

-서울동부지방법원 2020.02.14 2018나3757

-수원지방법원 2021.04.08 2020나73020

-서울동부지방법원 2020.01.31 2019나23413