logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.22 2016나12462
손해배상
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiff's claim extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings (including obvious facts in the record), the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on June 17, 2015 with the court of first instance seeking damages, and the first instance court rendered a judgment that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on November 5, 2015 by serving public notice on the copy of the complaint, the summons for the date of pleading, the purport of the claim, and the application for change of the cause of the claim, etc., and subsequently, rendered a judgment of the first instance court that declared the Defendant to accept the Plaintiff’s claim on November 5, 2015. The original judgment was served on the Defendant by service by public notice; the Defendant was served with a certified copy of the Suwon District Court Decision No. 2016Ka-2054, Jun. 24, 2016; and the first instance court judgment became final and conclusive on July 5, 2016. Accordingly, according to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant failed to know that the instant lawsuit was pending and the period of appeal.

B. As to this, the plaintiff, although the court of first instance served the copy, etc. of the complaint of this case on two occasions at the last domicile as recorded in the defendant's resident registration abstract (one of them is specially served), each service was impossible due to the addressee's unknown address. In light of the fact that the defendant received a certified copy of the decision of Suwon District Court 2016Ka name2054, which was served after the same address, the defendant intentionally avoided the receipt of the copy, etc. of the complaint of this case delivered by the court of first instance, and therefore, the appeal of this case is unlawful. However, the above circumstance cited by the plaintiff is attributable to the court of first instance.

arrow