logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.29 2014나65051
부당이득반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Whether an objection to subsequent completion is lawful;

A. The Defendant’s assertion did not receive a service of the instant decision on performance recommendation at his/her domicile, and the Defendant’s mother B submitted a written objection on July 8, 2014 by notifying the Defendant of the fact that he/she received the instant decision on performance recommendation on July 1, 2014. Therefore, the Defendant’s objection against the instant decision on performance recommendation is lawful.

B. Determination 1) The defendant may file an objection in writing within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation, and may file an objection even before the certified copy is served (Article 5-4(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). Meanwhile, according to Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if a person is not present at the place of service other than the working place, the document may be served as a person living together with the person who is man of sense. Here, “the place of service” is not necessarily limited to the person’s domicile, and “the person living together with the person who actually belongs to the same household as the person to receive the document,” and the “the person living together with the person who actually belongs to the same household as the person to receive the document,” the fact that the certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation in this case was served with the defendant’s registered domicile on June 5, 2014, and the fact that the defendant was present at the time of delivery of the certified copy of the recommendation in this case and the fact that the defendant was present at least 20.

However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 and No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3, the defendant from October 2, 2013 to the time of service.

arrow