(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.05 2017나30278

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 2018.02.05 2017나30278

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The record reveals the following facts.

In the first instance trial, a copy of the complaint of this case and the date of pleading against the defendant were served by public notice, and the pleading was proceeded on October 23, 2015, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered on October 23, 2015. The original judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice.

However, the Defendant was aware of the progress of the instant pleadings and the pronouncement of the judgment. On April 14, 2017, the Defendant became aware of the fact that he/she had been served with a certified copy of the property specification decision based on the judgment of the first instance on April 14, 2017, and that he/she filed an appeal to the instant subsequent appeal on April 27, 2017.

In such a case, barring any other special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, by failing to know the progress and result of the instant lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is lawful.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff’s appeal of this case is unlawful because the Plaintiff was aware of the process of the first instance trial or was notified by the Plaintiff after the judgment of the first instance. However, the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 4 through 7 alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s allegation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) from October 6, 2014 to December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 6,450,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid only KRW 200,000 among the loans. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 6,250,00, and the delay damages therefrom. (2) The Defendant, while the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff returned, is going to another workplace and works at the place of their operation. (3,00,000 per month.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.15 2015나62523

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.07 2015나30021

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.11 2015나46606

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.01 2016나15777

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.07 2015나46262