logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고법 1973. 8. 29. 선고 73나218 제1민사부판결 : 확정
[건물명도등청구사건][고집1973민(2), 126]
Main Issues

Cases where an application for the supplement of appeal is dismissed;

Summary of Judgment

If the plaintiff's remaining claims are omitted in the disposition and there is a explanation that the plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed only in the reasons for the judgment, if the plaintiff considered the part of the appeal as to the remaining claims which were dismissed after the appeal period expires, the appeal period as to the part against the plaintiff can not be different from the appeal period as to the part against the plaintiff. Thus, the non-compliance with the peremptory period becomes a cause attributable to the plaintiff, and thus, it is unlawful to complete the above order.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

Reference Cases

65Ma139 delivered on April 23, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 7831 delivered on April 23, 1965, Supreme Court Decision 160(20)847 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff 1 and appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant, Appellant

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu District Court (71 Gohap82) in the first instance

Text

The appeal shall be dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Effect of Request and Appeal

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall make an appraisal of the parts indicated in the separate drawings (i) and the parts indicated in the separate drawings (ii) constructed by 2 in Daegu-si, Northern-si, 152 to 62 square meters on the ground of 152 to 90 to 62 Gabbe, and 8 in 1, 5, 1, 5, 8, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 9, 1, 9, 1, 9, 1, 1, 5, 1, 3, 5, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 6, 16, 4, 1, 16, 1, 6, 16, 4, 1, 6, 4, 1, 5.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

Reasons

The gist of the plaintiff's appeal of this case is that the plaintiff's appellate brief of this case was rejected on February 8, 1971, and the plaintiff's appellate brief of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of 3.

Judges Seo-sok (Presiding Judge) Hun-Gaon Park Jae-joon

arrow