logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.12 2016나2114
대여금
Text

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

Reasons

1. If a copy of the complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment regarding the legitimacy of the appeal of this case were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, and thus, he/she may file an appeal of subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause was in a foreign country at the time of extinguishment of the cause)

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy of the

(2) On January 10, 2016, the first instance court rendered a judgment on November 21, 2005 after serving the Defendant with a copy of the complaint of this case and a notice of the date for pleading, etc. through service by public notice, and rendered a judgment on November 21, 2005. The original copy of the judgment was also served by public notice. The Defendant became aware that the first instance judgment was served by public notice only on January 30, 2016, and that the Defendant was served by public notice. On February 11, 2016, it can be acknowledged that the first instance court submitted a written appeal to the first instance court for subsequent completion on February 11, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant could not observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, because he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service

arrow