(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나34207

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나34207

물품대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Whether the appeal of this case is lawful may be served at the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business, office (hereinafter “location, etc.”) or place of work of the person to be served (Article 183(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act). If the address, etc. of the person to be served or the place of service is unknown in Korea or is unknown, the document may be served at the place of service (Article 183(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). If the person to be served is not present at the place of service other than the place of service, the document may be served at the office, employee, or cohabitant of the person to be served with the mental capability to make reasonable judgment.

(Article 186 (1) of the same Act, and if the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance is not served lawfully, the appeal period against the judgment is not run so that the judgment becomes final and conclusive formally, and therefore the appeal against the judgment is lawful as it is filed before service of the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da10345 Decided May 30, 197, etc.). According to the records, the court of first instance may acknowledge the fact that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court was delivered to the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and that the original copy of the judgment was delivered to the Defendant by public notice, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court was lawfully received by the Defendant, the Defendant, his employee, or a person living together with the Defendant, on March 20, 2015, on the ground that the Defendant’s reply was not submitted, without any verification as to whether there was legitimate authority to receive the original copy.

Thus, the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance is the defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제183조

참조판례

-대법원 1997. 5. 30. 선고 97다10345 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.10.16 2019나5083

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.26 2014나26872

-서울고등법원 2019.03.22 2018나2066129

-서울고등법원 2015.04.17 2013나69134

-대구지방법원 2020.12.01 2019나303504