(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.06.12 2018나5383 | 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) 부산지방법원 2019.06.12 2018나5383

대여금

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 on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

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

1) On November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. The court of first instance served the Defendant with a certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation and the guide of lawsuit as “YY C”, which is his/her domicile on the certified copy of resident registration, but was impossible to serve. On January 12, 2018, the Defendant served a certified copy of the complaint and the guide of lawsuit with respect to the Defendant on the certified copy of the resident registration, and later served the notice on the date for pleading on March 6, 2018 and served on the same day after the notice on the date for pleading was served on March 6, 2018. On March 7, 2018, the service of the certified copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant and came into force on March 8, 2018, and the Defendant filed the instant appeal on July 12, 2018.

B. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of a complaint of judgment, an original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative does not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and further, the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy of the judgment by public notice, barring special circumstances

(see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). The facts recognized above are the facts and the prior facts.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2004다8005 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.05.18 2016나9535

-대구지방법원 2017.06.01 2016나13879

-대구지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나19613

-대구지방법원 2016.02.18 2015나4144

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.16 2018나35782