logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.03.20 2014나11895
중개수수료
Text

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

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) from the date the cause ceases to exist. Here, 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 served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstances, and it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).

In the instant case, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment on June 25, 2014 by serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and the notice of date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on June 25, 2014, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. On August 7, 2014, the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case on the same day with the knowledge that the judgment was served by public notice was served only when the original copy of the judgment was issued on August 7, 2014, is apparent in the record. Thus, the Defendant’

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a real estate broker who operates the “D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office,” and is a three-story neighborhood living facilities, business facilities, and business facilities of C-Ground reinforced concrete structure from the Defendant at the time of Pakistan.

arrow