logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2018.12.13 2018나155
매매대금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. If a copy of a written complaint concerning the legitimacy of subsequent appeal and the original of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him and thus, may file an subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist.

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 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 notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original

(2) On January 10, 2013, the first instance court rendered a judgment on December 19, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). In this case, the first instance court rendered a judgment on December 19, 2013 after serving a copy of the complaint and a notice of date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice. The original judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. However, the Defendant is not aware of the fact that the first instance court served on the date when the first instance judgment was proceeding as executive title and presented a list of property within two weeks after having been present at the date when the first instance judgment was designated as executive title and then served on the date when the first instance judgment was served by public notice. The fact that the first instance court submitted the subsequent

Thus, the defendant could not comply with the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to him. Thus, the defendant is within two weeks from the date on which he became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice.

arrow