logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.11.18 2016나51794
보험금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

(a) Facts subsequent to the recognition are significant or obvious in records in this court:

1) 원고는 2013. 7. 12. 이 사건 소를 제기하고 2013. 10. 8. 제1심 1차 변론기일, 2013. 11. 5. 2차 변론기일에 각 출석하였다. 제1심 법원은 2차 변론기일에 사실조회 결과를 보기 위하여 변론기일을 추후지정 하기로 하였다. 2) 원고는 2013. 11. 28. 제1심 법원에 원고의 송달장소를 ‘순천시 B에 있는 C씨댁’으로 변경하는 내용의 송달장소변경신청서를 제출하였다.

3) The court of first instance: (a) designated the date for pleading 3 through 6 and the date for pronouncement; and (b) notified each date to the Plaintiff’s changed service place; and (c) notified each of the date for pleading and the date for pronouncement to the Plaintiff’s changed service place; (d) the court of first instance notified the date for pleading and the date for pronouncement to the addressee by means of dispatch and service; and (e) notified the court of first instance on February 10, 2015; and (e) when the original copy of the judgment was unable to be served to the addressee’s unknown whereabouts on February 12, 2015, service by public notice on February 25, 2015, and on March 12, 20

5) On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal to the court of first instance. (b) The term “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the grounds for failing to comply with the period despite the party’s due care to perform the said procedural acts. Therefore, in a case where the service of the litigation documents or the judgment thereof was impossible due to an inevitable method of service by public notice as a result of the impossibility of being served, the Plaintiff is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning to the party, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no negligence unless the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit to the court (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da42934, Mar. 22, 1994; 97Da50152, Oct. 22, 1998).

arrow