(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.07.15 2020나1316 | 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) 대구지방법원 2020.07.15 2020나1316

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. 1) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 3, 2019, and on July 16, 2019, the Defendant was served with a duplicate of the complaint on the Defendant himself/herself on July 22, 2019. 2) The first instance court sent a notice of the date of pleading (as of September 4, 2019, the date of pleading) to the Defendant on July 24, 2019.

3) On September 4, 2019, the court of first instance closed the pleadings and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the date of pleading, and on September 6, 2019, the court sent the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant on September 6, 2019, but did not serve the original copy of the judgment on September 23, 2019, and served the original copy at the time of October 80, 2019. (iv) The Defendant submitted the instant final appeal on February 25, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Cleared Facts in the record, the purport of the whole pleading

B. Determination 1) According to Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may subsequently complete the procedural acts within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. The term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” under the said Article refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period despite having been generally required to perform procedural acts. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice is ordinarily impossible, the first delivery of a copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice is different from the case where the lawsuit was first proceeded by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to comply with the peremptory period due to an investigation of the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be said that the party is due to any cause not attributable to him/her (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4730, Oct. 111, 20).

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 10. 11. 선고 2012다44730 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.03.27 2018나317018

-대구지방법원 2019.04.24 2018나9430

-서울남부지방법원 2020.02.07 2019나54854

-서울동부지방법원 2019.04.12 2018나21212