logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.12.19 2014나4282
부당이득금
Text

1. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of Defendant B’s subsequent appeal

(a) The following facts may be found in the records, together with the purpose of the entire pleadings, of which evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 5, and 6 is apparent, or which is based on facts:

1) On September 19, 201, Defendant B moved-in report to E located in Gwangju Mine-gu, and filed a wholesale and retail business registration with the trade name named “E” at the said domicile, but closed on June 21, 2013, Defendant B only lent the name of Defendant B to the Defendant F, and the actual operation of “E” was Defendant C. (2) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants against the Defendants, and entered the Defendant B’s address in the said domicile as his resident registration address, and on December 16, 2013, the duplicate of the instant complaint was the Defendant C’s employee, and on February 11, 2014, the date for pleading was the Defendant C’s employee, and on March 24, 2014, the original copy of the judgment was received on behalf of the Defendant C on March 24, 2014.

3) On April 8, 2014, Defendant B submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to this court. (b) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was residing in his resident registration address at the time of the first instance court’s proceeding, and that Defendant B’s appeal for subsequent completion was unlawful since it was based on the result of the judgment of the first instance court at the time of the first instance court’s proceeding, Defendant B’s appeal for subsequent completion was filed after the lapse of the appeal period. (c) In principle, the delivery of the documents to the person to whom the documents were served at his domicile, temporary domicile, business place, or office is based on the principle of delivery (Articles 178(1) and 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act) (i.e., the documents may be served at the place where the person to whom the documents were served is employed by employment, delegation, or other legal act (Article 183(2) of the same Act), and if the address or place of service of the person to whom the documents were served is unknown or unknown in Korea, such documents may be served only at the place (Article).

arrow