logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.24 2014나51802
손해배상
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

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 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 period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, may file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time when the cause ceases to exist) from the date on which the cause ceases to exist. Here, the "date on which 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 the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstance. Thus, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant, at the first instance court on February 24, 2006, received the original of the first instance judgment on September 26, 2014 and became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only after the receipt of the original of the first instance judgment at the first instance court on September 26, 2014. In so doing, the lower court’s judgment was rendered on June 19, 2014, and the original of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice.

According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause for which he could not be held responsible because he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence.

Since the judgment of the court of first instance is a method of service by public notice.

arrow