(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.07.15 2019나8552 | 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) 전주지방법원 2020.07.15 2019나8552

가등기에기한본등기절차이행

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. Since the plaintiffs' assertion promised to perform their obligations and withdraw the lawsuit against the defendant, and received the judgment by service by public notice, the plaintiffs' responsibility which led the defendant's negligence is much more than the defendant's fault.

Since it is very unfair to impose on the defendant the responsibility that fails to observe the period of appeal, which is the peremptory term, it is necessary to allow a subsequent appeal.

B. 1) The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on October 22, 2018, and the court of first instance served the Defendant with a duplicate of the complaint on January 15, 2019. (2) The court of first instance served the Defendant with a notice of the date set for the first and second pleadings, and the date for the rendering of a judgment; (3) the notice of the date was served on the Defendant on the date set for the first and second pleadings; and (4) the notice was not served due to the absence of a

3) On June 28, 2019, the court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant. The service was not made due to the absence of closure, and the service took effect on July 31, 2019 by means of service by public notice. 4) The Defendant sent text messages regarding the transfer of registration, etc. with the Plaintiff B from January 16, 2019 to August 18, 2019.

5) On September 16, 2019, the Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on September 16, 2019 (Evidence No. 1, marked facts, and the purport of the entire pleadings)

C. 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 comply with the period even though the party fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the procedural acts. Thus, in a case where the service of documents in the process of a lawsuit was impossible and the service of documents in the process of the lawsuit was inevitable as a result of service by public notice, the party has a duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning, as it is different from the case by public notice. Thus, if the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit to the court, it cannot be said that there was no negligence, and such obligation is

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2020.06.17 2019나5546

-부산가정법원 2020.4.22.선고 2019르139 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.28 2014나34897

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.12 2018나49149