(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.06.23 2016나9090 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2017.06.23 2016나9090

임대보증금반환

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. The legality of a subsequent appeal;

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though he/she fulfilled the duty of due care to conduct the litigation. In cases where documents of the lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of the lawsuit and served by public notice, a party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the first delivery of a copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is due to any reason for which the party cannot be held responsible.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). B.

Judgment

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the defendant received a duplicate of the complaint of this case directly on June 8, 2016 and accordingly submitted a written answer on June 14, 2016. As long as it is obvious that the defendant was aware of the fact that the lawsuit was pending, the defendant is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit.

(On the other hand, as alleged by the defendant, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff intentionally omitted the number of floors in the defendant's address, and instead, "Secheon City C", which is the defendant's address that the court of first instance attempted to serve, may be recognized as the defendant's domicile he/she has reported on resident registration. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the party.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal of this case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 10. 11. 선고 2012다44730 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.09.29 2017나2379

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.23 2019나72955

-서울남부지방법원 2017.04.27 2016나6076

-서울고등법원 2017.04.05 2017누36696

-서울북부지방법원 2017.10.25 2017나33184