(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.25 2016나38077

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.25 2016나38077

소유권이전등기

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. In the first instance court’s determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, a copy of the complaint of this case against the defendant and a notice of date for pleading, etc. against the defendant was served by public notice and the pleading was proceeded on March 17, 2016; the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was also served on the defendant by public notice; the fact that the defendant’s legal representative was issued the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on June 22, 2016 and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on the same day with the knowledge that the judgment was pronounced; in such a case, the fact that the defendant did not know of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case on the grounds that he was not responsible, and thus, the period of appeal, which is an invariable period, was not complied with (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7504, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). Thus, the appeal of this case is lawful within two weeks after the cause disappeared.

I would like to say.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Z attorney-at-law, who is the Defendant’s attorney, filed an appeal by altering the Defendant’s letter of delegation of lawsuit, and that the Z attorney-at-law filed an appeal by a person who has no power of attorney. However, in full view of each of the descriptions of the evidence of subparagraphs B through B (including each number) and the overall purport of the pleading, it is recognized that the Z attorney-at-law received the delegation of the lawsuit of this case through AA, for whom the power of attorney was delegated by the Defendant to appoint the Defendant as to this case, and therefore, the Z attorney-at-law

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The J, which was the head of the 1 German church of the basic facts, stated that it can take part only in the restoration by accepting a member of the Gu, as a member of the sight that it appears in his gender. In addition, the J, which was the head of the 1960 church, has identified the degree of belief that accepts him around 1960.

참조판례

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

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.02 2016나38657

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.05 2013가합534136

-인천지방법원 2015.03.31 2014나54540

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.06.14 2017가합106250

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.10 2013가단5138512