(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.27 2017누41445

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) 서울고등법원 2017.06.27 2017누41445

난민불인정결정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

Ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the appeal of this case.

1. As to the instant lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on January 26, 2017, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on February 2, 2017, and the Plaintiff filed subsequent appeal as to the judgment of the first instance on March 28, 2017, where the period of appeal for two weeks, which is the peremptory period, expired, is apparent in the record.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not know the content of the document served by the court as a foreigner because he was well rounding in the Korean language, and that he was aware of the fact of the judgment of the court of the first instance only after consultation at the law office due to an extension of the visa, and thus, the plaintiff could not file an appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the subsequent supplement of

B. Determination 1) Subsequent completion of procedural acts refers to a subsequent completion of procedural acts in a case where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them, which makes it possible for them to complete the neglected procedural acts. Here, the term "reasons for which the parties cannot be held liable" refers to the grounds for not being able to comply with the period despite the parties' due care to perform the procedural acts. However, according to the records of this case, the plaintiff himself/herself submitted the complaint in this case to the court of first instance, entered in the domicile at the place where the plaintiff was to be served, and was given a notice of the date sent by the court of first instance at the above domicile, and was present at the date for pleading and present at the date for pleading, and after the plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment of first instance at the above domicile, the plaintiff can be recognized as being served the original copy of the judgment

2.2

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.09.19 2017누61845

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.02 2015나7052

-서울고등법원 2017.07.25 2017누45799

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.14 2015나549

-부산지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나14624