(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.14 2018나3757

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) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.14 2018나3757

대여금

Text

1. The appeal by the defendant C shall be dismissed;

2. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff is the defendant.

Reasons

1. If a copy of the complaint, original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist

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 rendered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when he/she

(2) On January 10, 2013, the court of first instance served the Defendants by means of public notice and notice of the date for pleading, and declared the Defendants to have accepted all of their claims on March 19, 2009 by means of service by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da75044, 75051, Nov. 10, 2013). On March 19, 2009, the court of first instance served the Defendants with the original copy of the judgment on March 31, 2009; Defendant C was served on the Defendants on October 17, 2018; Defendant B was aware of the fact that the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice upon each of the instant courts on November 2, 2018; and each of the facts that the first instance court filed an appeal on November 13, 2018 are significant.

According to the above facts, the defendants were unable to observe the peremptory appeal period due to the reasons not attributable to them, and the defendant B filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the time when the reasons cease to exist. Thus, the appeal for subsequent completion of appeal by the defendant B is lawful.

However, the defendant C was served by means of service by public notice by the first instance court.

참조판례

-대법원 2013. 1. 10. 선고 2010다75044,75051 판결

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.02.14 2018나3757

-서울동부지방법원 2020.02.07 2019나977

-서울동부지방법원 2019.10.18 2018나3092

-서울동부지방법원 2020.01.31 2019나23413

-서울동부지방법원 2019.11.01 2018나30049