logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.19 2018나20889
대여금
Text

1. The appeal by the defendant B shall be dismissed;

2. Defendant E’s appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's judgment on the main defense against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s appeal of Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”)’s main defense must be dismissed as it is unlawful and not satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party is not liable” refers to the reason why the party is unable to comply with the period despite his/her due care to conduct the said procedural acts. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served in the ordinary way during the process of litigation and served by means of service by public notice, the first delivery of a copy of the complaint to the party is different from those in the process of litigation by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to comply with the peremptory period due to his/her failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed as a cause for which the party is not responsible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). Furthermore, whether such obligation was served by the party present at the date for pleading and present at the date for pleading, whether the subsequent notice was received from the date for pleading, or whether he/she is obligated to appoint an attorney at the date for pleading, 25.

arrow