logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.04 2015나30869
양수금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. If a copy of a written complaint for determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion and the 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, and in such a case, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist because it falls under a case where the peremptory term cannot be complied with due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the case where the party or legal representative did not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or legal representative knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware

(1) The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on July 2, 2012 by serving a copy of the complaint, notification of the date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was served to the Defendant on July 7, 2012 by means of service by public notice. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the first instance judgment was served on the Defendant on August 21, 2015, and became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was rendered by public notice, and that the first instance judgment was served on the Defendant on August 21, 2015, and that the first instance court submitted an appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance on August 25, 2015, within two weeks thereafter.

Thus, the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the failure of the court of first instance to know the fact that the judgment was delivered without negligence. Thus, the defendant was informed of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered by public notice.

arrow