logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.23 2017나4125
부당이득금 반환
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

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 by neglecting it within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist," and "reasons not attributable to him/her" in this context means the reasons why the party was unable to comply with the relevant period, even though he/she performed the duty of care generally required for conducting procedural acts, even though he/she performed the duty of care.

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

(2) According to the records of this case, the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195, Nov. 10, 2005) rendered a judgment that served a copy of the complaint against the defendant and a notice of date for pleading by public notice, and accepted the plaintiff's claim on September 12, 2013 after the pleading was made, and the original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by public notice on the 13th of the same month, and the defendant received a certified copy of the first instance judgment on December 19, 2016, and then filed the appeal of this case on the 30th of the same month.

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case was filed within two weeks from the date on which the Defendant became aware that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice, and is lawful by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff, Defendant, and Nonparty Co., Ltd.

arrow