(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.12.04 2014나6648 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2014.12.04 2014나6648

구상금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. We examine the legitimacy of appeal after subsequent completion of this case ex officio as to the legitimacy of appeal after subsequent completion of this case.

Unless there exist any special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, an original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to make the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) from the date the cause ceases to exist (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Here, the term "date the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the parties or legal representatives knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the parties or legal representatives knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the parties or legal representatives have become aware of

(2) According to the records, the court of first instance ordered the service of the Defendant by public notice on December 31, 2013, and subsequently rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on February 5, 2014 after serving a notice of the date of pleading by public notice. The original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on February 13, 2014. The Defendant was not aware of the fact that the judgment of first instance was pronounced, and was sent to the Defendant by public notice at the first instance court on April 9, 2014 only after inspecting the records of this case and being issued with the original copy of the judgment by public notice. It can be recognized that the first instance court submitted the instant petition of appeal after the second judgment was served on April 15, 2014 prior to the lapse of two weeks.

Therefore, the defendant's objection.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2004다8005 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2014.10.30 2013나20814

-대구고등법원 2021.04.09 2018나160

-대구지방법원 2015.04.30 2014나14793

-대구지방법원 2015.09.24 2015나500

-대구지방법원 2015.03.26 2014나13981