(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.29 2017나2257 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2017.09.29 2017나2257

손해배상(기)

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. Determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

A. Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the case where the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice and the defendant knew that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the defendant knew that the judgment was served by public notice only when the records of the case were perused, or the original copy of the judgment was received (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410, Oct. 24, 1997). However, in a case where the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice and it is deemed that there were special circumstances that naturally recognizable as to the circumstances, it shall be deemed that the reason was extinguished by ratification that the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice at the time when the ordinary time required for identifying the facts was passed by public notice and that there was no reason for not responsible for it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533 delivered on February 9, 1999). B.

Judgment

On January 24, 2007, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on January 24, 2007, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on March 6, 2017, knowing that the first instance judgment was served by public notice, is apparent in the record, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion is lawful.

The Plaintiff appears to have filed a lawsuit with Busan District Court 2017Gaso9565 for the extension of extinctive prescription of the judgment deposit claim of the first instance court, and the Defendant appears to have served the copy of the complaint and the guide document of the lawsuit on February 25, 2017.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff 1.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조

참조판례

-대법원 1997. 10. 24. 선고 97다20410 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.10.27 2017나2011

-부산지방법원 2017.10.27 2016나11261

-서울동부지방법원 2019.03.29 2018나27654

-인천지방법원 2017.08.18 2017나3581

-부산지방법원 2019.06.26 2017나9098