logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.09.07 2016나655
매매대금반환 등
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

First, we examine whether the defendant's appeal is legitimate.

If a copy of the complaint, 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, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist (30 days if such cause ceases to exist in a foreign country

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, barring any other special circumstance, it shall be deemed that a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice when the party or legal representative inspected the records of

(2) According to the records, the Defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of the records of trial at the first instance court on January 4, 2016, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on January 2016, 2016, following the service of a duplicate of the complaint of this case and the notice of date for pleading by public notice to the Defendant by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Nov. 10, 2013).

According to this, the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered by public notice by perusal and duplication of the trial records on January 4, 2016. Since the defendant filed an appeal on January 20, 2016, the defendant's appeal is unlawful since it filed an appeal on January 20, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

arrow