logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.06 2016나2008082
임금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. On May 13, 2015, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. On June 17, 2015, the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served on the Plaintiff by public notice.

On November 12, 2015, the plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal to the first instance court on which the period of appeal expires.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

(a) The following facts of recognition are apparent in, or obvious to, the record:

1) On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and submitted documents and preparatory documents regarding the application for modification of the lawsuit or for modification of the claim as of August 28, 2014, the application for correction of the purport of the claim as of August 28, 2014, the preparatory documents and evidence description as of October 22, 2014, respectively. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was served with both a complaint with the first instance court and the notification of modification on the date of each of the date of pleading or alteration on December 5, 2014, and the notification of the date of pleading or alteration on January 28, 2015 and on April 25, 2015, and the Plaintiff was directly present at the designated date of pleading on August 7, 2014, 2014; on the other hand, the Plaintiff was notified of the amendment as of the date of pleading on April 25, 2015.

Accordingly, the first instance court sentenced to the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the date of May 13, 2015, and served the original copy of the judgment as the service place reported by the Plaintiff on May 29, 2015, but was not served due to the absence of closure, and issued an order of service by public notice on June 2, 2015, thereby serving the original copy of the judgment on June 17, 2015.

B. 1) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (in a case where a party was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.

“Any cause for which a party is not liable” as set forth in the above shall be generally required by a party to conduct litigation.

arrow