(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.19 2015나46866

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 2016.02.19 2015나46866

양수금

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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. On June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of transfer money against the Defendant with the Seoul Central District Court. Since the copy, etc. of the complaint was not served, the court of first instance served the Defendant on February 18, 2014 by means of service by public notice. (2) On March 7, 2014, the court of first instance pronounced a judgment on the same day after closing the pleadings on March 7, 2014. On April 4, 2014, the original of the judgment was served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and the original of the judgment reached the Defendant on April 5, 2014.

3) On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the attachment and collection order against the Defendant, with the title of execution, as the judgment of the first instance court on May 23, 2014. The said court rendered a ruling of the attachment and collection order of the claim on May 27, 2014, and the Defendant directly received the original copy of the said ruling on July 4, 2014. (4) The Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the court of first instance on August 21, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was delivered by service of public notice on July 4, 2014, when he was served with the original copy of the judgment of the first instance as the title of execution.

Therefore, the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case on August 21, 2015, which is obvious from the two weeks to the elapse from the Defendant, is unlawful, since the appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case is unlawful.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's rejection of the appeal for the subsequent completion of the case.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.26 2019나34052 (1)

-전주지방법원 2020.06.17 2019나6440

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.12 2017나2593

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.09 2014나69466

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.23 2015나9683