logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.10.18 2019가단12687 (1)
물품대금
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Article 233(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The proceedings shall be interrupted upon the death of a party. In this case, the proceedings shall be taken over by the heir, the administrator of inherited property, or any other person who shall continue the proceedings under the law.” Article 60(1) of the Rules on Civil Procedure provides, “A request for continuation of proceedings shall be made in writing.” Article 233(2) provides, “A request under paragraph (1) provides, “A request shall be accompanied by a document explaining the grounds for interruption

In addition, Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “In the event that an incidental lawsuit cannot be corrected, the lawsuit may be dismissed by a judgment without holding any pleadings.”

Furthermore, even if the defect can be corrected, if the presiding judge did not correct it despite having ordered the Plaintiff to correct it, it is reasonable to view that the lawsuit can be dismissed by judgment without holding any pleadings by applying the above provisions mutatis mutandis.

2. The record reveals the following facts.

The duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on June 26, 2019.

After that, the defendant died on July 1, 2019.

Since this court appears to have died of the Defendant during the instant lawsuit, it issued an order of correction to proceed with the procedure of litigation under Article 233 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the said order of correction was served on the Plaintiff on August 19, 2019.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff did not perform the procedure of taking over the lawsuit within the correction deadline.

3. The instant lawsuit was filed against the deceased person as a party, and the Plaintiff did not correct the defect even though it was ordered to correct it.

Therefore, by applying Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act mutatis mutandis, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed without oral proceedings.

arrow