logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.26 2019나32407
어음금
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. If a copy of a complaint, original copy, etc. of judgment regarding the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion was served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time

The "date on which the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, and further the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice is known.

In ordinary cases, only when a party or legal representative peruses the records of the case or receives a new original of the judgment, it shall be deemed that he/she became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice.

(2) On January 5, 201, 201, an original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was also served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice. On May 11, 201, the fact that the Defendant, who was residing in Australia, was served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). As to the instant case, the fact that the Plaintiff received a duplicate of the written complaint of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2000Da97363, Jun. 5, 2019) and submitted the instant written appeal to the court of first instance on June 1, 2019 is apparent in the record.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to comply with the appeal period due to the failure of the first instance court to know that the judgment was delivered by public notice without negligence, and thus the defendant could not be held responsible for such failure.

(b) overseas;

arrow