logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.20 2019나17446
구상금
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 the appeal of this case

A. The original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance, based on the plaintiff's assertion, was legally served as a supplementary service to J, a person living together with the defendant, and the defendant was unaware of the supplementary service of the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance and failed

Even if the defendant did not perform his/her duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be viewed as a case where the defendant failed to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) According to Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, when a person to receive service other than work place is not present at the place where service is to be made, a document may be served as a person living together with the person living together with the same household as the person to receive service (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da23636, May 15, 2018). Unless the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was delivered lawfully, the appeal period against the judgment cannot be deemed to have been determined formally, and therefore, the issue of completion of litigation cannot be raised, and the appeal against the judgment is lawful because it was filed before service of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da10345, May 30, 1997).

The following circumstances revealed by the purport of Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4 and all the arguments, namely, the defendant, on November 14, 2006, married with K on June 14, 2010, and K died on June 14, 2010; ② The first instance court served the notice of the date of pleading as the "L apartment Mho-si," which is the defendant's domicile, at the time of the defendant's filing of the date of pleading, as the defendant's resident registration, and the above notice was served as supplementary documents to "N of the defendant's live together" on June 30, 2010; ③ the first instance court is the plaintiff's preparatory documents and the second instance court.

arrow