logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.11 2019나49023
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “In a case where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist, and in a case where the original copy, etc. of the complaint and the original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unable to be served without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the time such cause ceases to exist.” "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" means not only the case where the party or legal representative did not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but further, barring any special circumstance, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the original copy was inspected or received by

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). The first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading, etc. by each service by public notice, and served as the date for pleading, and declared a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on February 14, 2019. The original of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice, and the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal on August 21, 2019 after having been issued the authentic copy of the judgment on August 14, 2019 is apparent in the record.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant filed an appeal, which is a peremptory period, on the ground that the judgment of the first instance was unaware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice without negligence.

arrow