logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.17 2017나67193
공사대금
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, is modified as follows.

Reasons

1. If a copy of a complaint of determination as to the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal and an original copy of the judgment were served by public notice, 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 to the time either the party or legal representative is not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known by public notice, barring any other special circumstance. Thus, in ordinary cases, the party or legal representative becomes aware

(2) On February 24, 2006, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on February 4, 2016 after serving the Defendant with the document related to the lawsuit, such as a duplicate of the complaint, by public notice, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on February 4, 2016. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was pronounced, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that he/she received the instant appeal on June 21, 2017 by perusal and duplication of the records of this case on June 16, 2017. The fact that the Defendant filed the instant appeal on June 21, 2017 is obvious or obvious. As above, once the copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served on the Defendant by public notice, the Defendant was unaware of the service without negligence, and thus, the Defendant cannot comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s appeal filed on June 21, 21, within 2017.

arrow