logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.15 2018나80362
대여금
Text

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. 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 litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” means the reasons why the party could not observe 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.

(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 citing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 1, 2009, and served the Defendant by means of service by public notice after serving the Defendants with a duplicate of the complaint, the guide for the lawsuit, and the notice of the date of pleading by public notice. The court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195, Nov. 10, 2005) is clear that the Defendants received the original copy of the payment order (hereinafter “second payment order”) on Oct. 30, 2018, and filed the appeal of this case on Nov. 5, 2018.

Thus, the defendants' appeal of this case was served by service of public notice by the first instance court.

arrow