(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나3275

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) 의정부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나3275

물품대금

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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

(a) The following facts are apparent in the records of recognition:

1) On July 18, 2013, in the first instance trial, a complaint was served lawfully by mail to C, who is an employee of the Defendant, but thereafter, the notice on the date for pleading was not served to the Defendant due to the unknown whereabouts of the director. 2) On November 18, 2013, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on November 18, 2013, and served the original copy of the judgment by public notice, who is not capable of serving the original copy of the judgment due to the unknown whereabouts of the director, and the service became effective at December 30, 2013.

3) On May 25, 2018, the Defendant perused and copied the records of this case on May 31, 2018, and submitted the instant written appeal against the judgment of the first instance on May 31, 2018. (B) Determination 1) The Defendant refers to the grounds for failing to comply with the relevant period despite the party’s due care to perform the procedural acts, as stipulated under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, “reasons not attributable to the party.” In the event a document of lawsuit is unable to be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, it is different from the case where the lawsuit was conducted by public notice from the case where the first copy of the written appeal was served by public notice. Thus, if the party failed to examine the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party’s failure to abide by the peremptory period is due to any cause

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012, etc.). 2 In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health unit and the Defendant were duly served with the instant complaint, and thus, the Defendant was obligated to investigate the progress of the instant lawsuit, but did not confirm the progress of the lawsuit, such as the pronouncement of judgment and whether the instant lawsuit was served.

Therefore, the appeal period cannot be observed due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 10. 11. 선고 2012다44730 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2014.09.26 2013나57322

-서울남부지방법원 2017.04.27 2016나6076

-부산지방법원 2018.01.10 2017나46257

-창원지방법원 2019.01.17 2018나54856

-창원지방법원 2015.11.18 2015나3307