(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.11.07 2018나7236 | 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) 대구지방법원 2019.11.07 2018나7236

임차보증금반환

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).

Judgment

According to the records of this case, the court of first instance is recognized that the defendant served the notice of the date of pleading related to the lawsuit, such as a duplicate of the complaint, and the documents related to the lawsuit by public notice, and the date of pleading, and the pleading was proceeded with. On July 13, 2018, the judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim of this case was declared and the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice. The defendant was aware that the defendant's deposit claim was seized from the financial institution on August 10, 2018,

According to the above facts, the defendant could not be able to observe the appeal period, which is a peremptory term, because the copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint of this case were served by means of service by public notice, and was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case due to a cause not attributable to himself. Therefore, the defendant raised within two weeks from the date when he became aware of

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2004다8005 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.05.24 2017나305841

-대구지방법원 2019.04.18 2018나2484

-대구지방법원 2019.02.14 2017나6205

-대구지방법원 2018.09.13 2018나2408

-대구지방법원 2018.10.18 2018나304784