(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.04.11 2017나11179

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) 인천지방법원 2018.04.11 2017나11179

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

1..

Reasons

1. The proceedings of the instant lawsuit: (a) the Defendant was directly served with the duplicate of the instant complaint on June 14, 2017; (b) on June 26, 2017, and submitted a written response on July 18, 2017; and (c) the Defendant was directly served with the Plaintiff’s application for correction of indication of the party on July 10, 2017; (c) the duplicate of the briefs dated July 11, 2017; and (d) the Defendant was present at the second date for pleading of the first instance trial on August 7, 2017 and submitted a documentary evidence; and (d) the first instance court rendered a judgment on September 13, 2017; and (e) the Defendant was also serving with the original copy on September 26, 2017 after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal by public notice as well as on July 26, 2017.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the original copy of the first instance judgment was served by public notice and became final and conclusive in the form of a final and conclusive judgment. Since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, it constitutes a case where the Defendant is unable to observe the period of appeal due to a

B. The legitimacy of the appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment shall be determined based on whether the period for appeal was not observed due to a cause not attributable to the appellant. In the case where the documents of the lawsuit were served lawfully and the writ of summons, etc. for the date of pleading are served, and the documents of the lawsuit are served in a method of service by public notice as it is inevitable, unlike the case by public notice from the service of the copy of the first complaint to the case by public notice, the defendant was aware that the lawsuit was filed.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant did not know that the judgment against the defendant was pronounced.

Even if it is reasonable to deem that he was negligent.

Supreme Court on March 10, 1987

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.07.11 2017나5303

-인천지방법원 2018.04.25 2017나66322

-서울남부지방법원 2020.06.12 2019나67935

-서울동부지방법원 2017.10.27 2017나1860

-부산지방법원 2020.07.03 2019나62659