logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2019.06.13 2018나13392
손해배상
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 204,734,788 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from April 5, 2017 to June 13, 2019 against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.”

Here, the "reasons for which the parties cannot be held responsible" refers to the reasons why the parties could not observe the period even though they fulfilled their duty of care to conduct procedural acts.

However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to 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 negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005). The court of first instance rendered a judgment against the defendant on June 8, 2017 after serving the notice of a copy of the complaint and the date for pleading by public notice, and served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice. The fact that the defendant filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on July 17, 2018 is apparent in the record.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant became aware that the judgment of this case was rendered at the time of filing an appeal for subsequent completion, and the fact that the appeal for subsequent completion was filed can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal of this case is filed within two weeks from the date the defendant knew that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice.

arrow