(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.07.25 2017누45799

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) 서울고등법원 2017.07.25 2017누45799

난민불인정결정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

Ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the appeal of this case.

1. As to the instant lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on February 13, 2017, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on March 31, 2017 by means of service by public notice, and the Plaintiff filed an subsequent appeal regarding the first instance judgment on April 19, 2017, which was after the lapse of the peremptory period of two weeks, the peremptory period, from which the Plaintiff filed an appeal. This is obvious in the record.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's subsequent appeal of this case is lawful, since the plaintiff, who is a foreigner of Egypt nationality, becomes aware of the fact of the judgment of the court of first instance after being served by service by public notice, and the plaintiff did not appeal within the appeal period.

B. 1) Subsequent completion of procedural acts refers to a subsequent completion of procedural acts in a case where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them, and the "reasons for which the parties cannot be held liable" here refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period, despite the parties' due care to perform the procedural acts. 2) However, according to the records of this case, after the plaintiff voluntarily submitted the complaint of this case, the plaintiff was present at the date of first instance trial and reported change of address, and the court of first instance sent the original copy of the judgment to the reported address of the plaintiff several times after the court of first instance was sentenced to the notice date, but the service of the original copy becomes impossible due to the lack of closed documents, it can be acknowledged that the facts of service by public notice was made by the court of first instance.

In light of the progress of the lawsuit, it is not familiar with the legal system of the Republic of Korea, as alleged by the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.02 2015나7052

-서울고등법원 2017.09.19 2017누61845

-서울고등법원 2017.10.19 2017누64059

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.16 2014나24326

-서울고등법원 2017.06.27 2017누41445