(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.06 2016나794

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.06 2016나794

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

purport:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant under Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015Gada19978, and the duplicate of the complaint sent by the court of first instance was served on E who referred to as the Defendant’s general affairs in Seoul Jung-gu C(D) as the Defendant’s domicile on May 22, 2015, and the first date for pleading also served on the date for pleading.

7.3. The service was made to E.

B. As the Defendant was not present on August 13, 2015, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on August 27, 2015, when the Plaintiff did not appear on the date for the first instance trial, the first instance court had the Plaintiff state a complaint and present documentary evidence, and concluded the pleadings and notified the Defendant of the sentencing date, but was not served due to the absence of closed text.

C. The above court served a written judgment on September 15, 2015 on the Defendant, while it was not served on the Defendant due to the absence of closure, and served on the Defendant on September 15, 2015, and the above written judgment was served on the Defendant on October 1 of the same year.

On February 22, 2016, the defendant filed a subsequent appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, the appeal period of which is limited.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts that are remarkable to this Court and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. In light of the foregoing, “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period despite the party’s exercise of the duty to act in the course of litigation. In a case where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by service by public notice, the case where the first copy of the complaint was served through service by public notice is different from the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, the party is not

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.01.11 2017나210649

-대법원 2018.01.25 2017다46748

-서울서부지방법원 2015.11.12 2015나32275

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.17 2019나81850

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.08 2020나47450