logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2019.01.31 2018나148
약정금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. An appeal to determine whether an appeal for subsequent completion is lawful shall be filed within two weeks from the date on which the written judgment is served, and the above period shall be a peremptory period;

(Article 396 of the Civil Procedure Act). Meanwhile, in a case where a party was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist

(1) Article 173(1) of the same Act provides that “A party’s failure to comply with the peremptory period for filing an appeal shall be deemed as a cause not attributable to the defendant, barring any special circumstance, if the defendant was found to have become aware of the existence of the lawsuit without knowing from the beginning the fact that the lawsuit was pending and the original copy of the judgment became final and conclusive after being served to the defendant by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). According to the records of this case, the first instance court may recognize the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal to the instant case on July 13, 2018, by means of service by public notice, after serving a copy of the complaint (an application for payment order) and a notice of date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by means of service and proceeding for pleadings.

If so, as long as there is no evidence to prove that the defendant had been aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered before July 13, 2018 and the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, the plaintiff stated that the defendant was present at the police station in relation to the case in which he filed a criminal complaint against the defendant, and thus, the defendant brought the lawsuit of this case.

arrow