(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.01.17 2019나733 | 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) 창원지방법원 2020.01.17 2019나733

대여금

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. If a copy of the written complaint on the legitimacy of the appeal of this case and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. Thus, in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him.

(2) A subsequent appeal may be filed within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist.

Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act in the case of service by public notice by the court of first instance means that the defendant does not know the fact that the reason ceases to exist, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, it should be deemed that the defendant knew that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant read the records of the case or received the original judgment by public notice.

(see Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410, Oct. 24, 1997). The first instance court, after serving a copy of the complaint against the defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, made a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on April 11, 2018, the original copy of the judgment was served on the defendant by public notice on April 13, 2018. The fact that the original copy of the judgment was served on the defendant by public notice on the part of the first instance court on January 28, 2019, and that the defendant was served on the defendant by public notice after being issued with the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on January 29, 2019, and that the first instance court filed a subsequent appeal on January 29, 2019 is clear.

Therefore, since the defendant could not comply with the appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to him, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date on which the court of first instance became aware of the fact by public notice is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. C’s lending to the Defendant on May 16, 2005, with interest of KRW 20 million on May 16, 2005 (payment on May 25) and due date for payment.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조

참조판례

-대법원 1997. 10. 24. 선고 97다20410 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.12.18 2019나61229

-창원지방법원 2019.09.06 2018나3414

-창원지방법원 2020.01.17 2019나733

-수원지방법원 2020.08.27 2019나60141

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.12 2019나53657