logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.12.12 2018나7111
양수금
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay 327,009 won to the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff and its corresponding amount.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On March 16, 2007, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant.

On November 23, 2007, the first instance court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,90,485 won and 3,127,009 won with interest rate of 17% per annum from April 1, 2005 to the date of full payment," and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 19, 2007.

On August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order with the Seoul Central District Court 2017 tea359377 to suspend the extinctive prescription of the above claim. The original of the payment order was served by service by public notice and became final and conclusive as is.

On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred the above claim against the Defendant to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff.

On September 27, 2018, the defendant filed an objection to the above payment order, and the above payment order case was implemented as a litigation procedure (Seoul Central District Court 2018Daso292526, hereinafter referred to as "after-sale case").

On December 12, 2018, the Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the judgment of the first instance on December 12, 2018, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the instant lawsuit on March 27, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff-Successor’s assertion as to the legitimacy of an appeal to complete the whole purport of the pleadings, and whether the appeal to complete the whole purport of the pleadings is lawful or not, was served on October 31, 2018 by means of service by public notice, and the first instance judgment was served on it. Thus, the appeal to complete the instant case filed after January 12 thereafter, shall be dismissed as unlawful.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that he became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice on the date of the first pleading of December 7, 2018 in the latter case.

Judgment

A copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint shall be served by public notice.

arrow