logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.10 2019나50443
손해배상(자)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

(a)The following facts of recognition are apparent or obvious to this Court in the records:

(1) On November 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and on January 4, 2019, a duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant’s spouse C who is a cohabitant. The Defendant submitted a written response as of February 22, 2019.

(2) On May 1, 2019, the first instance court: (a) designated the Defendant on May 1, 2019 as the first date for pleading and served a notice of the date for pleading to the Defendant at the address where a duplicate of the complaint was served; (b) on April 5, 2019, the notice was not served as an addressee’s unknown address; and (c) sent it on April 22,

(3) Subsequent to May 29, 2019, the first instance court: (a) designated the Defendant as the date for the second pleading on which a duplicate of the complaint was served to the Defendant; and (b) served the Defendant a notice of the date for the second pleading on May 9, 2019; and (c) served the notice on May 14, 2019 when the notice was not served on the addressee’s unknown address.

(4) On May 29, 2019, the first instance court closed the pleadings on June 19, 2019 and designated June 19, 2019 as the sentencing date. A notice of the sentencing date was served on the Defendant’s domicile where a duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant. The notice of sentencing was served on the Defendant’s domicile where a duplicate of the complaint was served.

5. The notice was served on the “person with a position” in the Defendant’s domicile.

(5) On June 19, 2019, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and served the original copy of the judgment in the first instance on the Defendant’s domicile where the duplicate of the complaint was served, but was not served on the addressee’s address. As such, on July 5, 2019, the service of the original copy of the judgment in the first instance court was effective on July 20, 2019.

(6) On August 26, 2019, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for the subsequent completion.

B. (1) The “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the period even though the party fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the procedural acts.

arrow