(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.04.15 2015나13680

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.04.15 2015나13680

건물명도 등

Text

1. The appeal of this case shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The subsequent completion of the appeal as to whether the subsequent appeal is lawful may be made within two weeks from the time when the defendant is unable to observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him;

However, from the first instance court to November 21, 2014, the Defendant directly served the copy of the instant complaint on January 16, 2015, and each party’s notice of the date of rendering a judgment without holding a pleadings on January 16, 2015, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment without holding a pleadings in favor of the Plaintiff on February 10, 2015, and the court of first instance served the authentic copy of the judgment on the Defendant’s domicile but it was impossible to serve the original copy on the Defendant by public notice on March 5, 2015, and the Defendant filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on October 8, 2015 is clear in the record.

The Defendant was aware of the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed and that the judgment was rendered on February 10, 2015, because the Defendant was directly served with a duplicate of the instant complaint and the notice of the date of rendering a judgment without holding a pleading.

In such a case, the defendant should have known the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case by means of inquiry to the court or computer inquiry, etc., but neglected the progress and result of the lawsuit, and so long as the original judgment is finalized by service by public notice, it cannot be viewed as a case where the defendant could not observe the appeal period due to reasons not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's appeal is unlawful because it did not meet the requirements for the completion

Therefore, the plaintiff's defense pointing this out is justified.

2. In conclusion, the appeal of the instant case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.16 2015나53017

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.05 2015나6536

-서울남부지방법원 2015.12.10 2015나5915

-대법원 2005. 9. 15. 선고 2005다14465 판결

-서울고등법원 2018.08.16 2018누45932