(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.01.31 2017나5240 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2018.01.31 2017나5240

가스대금

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. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons not attributable to the party” means the reasons why the party was unable to comply with the period, even though he/she performed the duty of care generally required for conducting the litigation.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195, Nov. 10, 2005). The court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on August 16, 201 after serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case and a notice of date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by means of service by public notice. The original judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on August

Unless there is any evidence to deem that the Defendant had already known the fact that the judgment of the first instance was rendered and the fact that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice was served on July 14, 2017, and had already been served two weeks prior to the filing of the instant appeal, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period due to his/her failure to know the instant lawsuit and procedure due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2005다27195 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.01.17 2017나3299

-제주지방법원 2020.04.29 2019나10699

-울산지방법원 2020.09.10 2019나1398

-울산지방법원 2020.09.17 2019나1602

-울산지방법원 2021.02.16 2019나13773