logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.20 2015나12978
중장비 임대료
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. If a copy of a complaint of determination as to the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any other special circumstance. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative

(2) According to the reasoning of the records and arguments, the court of first instance, which sent the Defendant’s resident registration to his/her domicile, was unable to serve, and subsequently rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim by means of service by public notice, and subsequently rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim. The original copy of the judgment was served by public notice on September 14, 2013. On August 17, 2015, the Defendant becomes aware that the first instance judgment was served by the means of service by public notice only with the delivery of the original copy of the decision as the case for the seizure of claims and the collection order for the collection order for the Daejeon District Court Decision 2015TTTT 2015T 6236, and the first instance judgment was served on August 24, 2015.

Therefore, since the defendant could not comply with the peremptory appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to him, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date the judgment of the first instance court became aware of the fact by public notice is lawful.

2. The Parties’ assertion.

arrow