logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.10.12 2018나989
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. Judgment of the court of first instance No. 1-B.

Reasons

1. If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by public notice as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term 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 after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the time the party or legal representative was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any other special circumstance. Thus, in ordinary cases, the parties or

(2) According to the records, the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). The records reveal that: (a) the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of all Plaintiff on Nov. 7, 2017 after delivering documents related to the lawsuit, such as a duplicate of the complaint, to the Defendant by public notice; and (b) the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice to the Defendant on Nov. 7, 2017; and (c) the Defendant was not aware of the fact that the judgment of first instance was pronounced; and (d) the Defendant was aware of the records of this case and filed an appeal on Apr. 9, 2018 by perusal and duplication of the records of this case on Mar. 27, 2018. Thus, insofar as the copy and the original copy of the complaint were delivered to the Defendant by public notice without negligence, the Defendant did not know of the service, and thus, constitutes a case where the Defendant could not comply with the peremptory term due to be held within two weeks.

arrow