(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.10.15 2015나12705

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) 서울고등법원 2015.10.15 2015나12705

대여금

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

If a copy of the complaint of legal principles regarding the determination of the legitimacy of the appeal of this case, and the original copy of the judgment, etc., were 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 observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal of subsequent completion within two weeks from

Here, the term “the date on which such cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original copy

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da10167 Decided April 15, 2010. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on October 6, 201. On February 27, 2012, the court of first instance rendered a judgment of the first instance accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on April 17, 2012 and served the original copy of the judgment by public notice.

On January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for an explanation of property relationship with the Defendant under the name of the debtor, the original copy of the judgment with the executory power of the first instance court, under the Incheon District Court 2015Kao626, and received a decision to specify property from the above court on January 26, 2015.

On March 24, 2015, the Defendant, upon receipt of a certified copy of the decision of the time limit for specification of property, submitted a written objection (hereinafter “instant written objection”) to the above court on March 30, 2015, stating the following:

Objections to Property Statement

1. As to the above case, the applicant (the defendant).

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.01.17 2016나1227

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.27 2017나60460

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.16 2018나35782

-인천지방법원 2015.04.15 2014나8165

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.11 2018나20810