(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.03.20 2018나4373 | 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 2019.03.20 2018나4373

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Unless there exist special circumstances, if a copy of a written complaint of determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, and the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant is unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term “after the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served 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, barring any other special circumstances.

(1) According to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 29, 2018 after serving a copy of the complaint, notification of the date for pleading, etc. to the Defendant by means of service by public notice. The original of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and the Defendant was issued an original copy of the judgment on July 27, 2018, and submitted an appeal for subsequent completion on August 10, 2018.

Thus, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case due to a cause not attributable to himself.

Therefore, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date the defendant obtained an original copy of the judgment and became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by means of service by public notice is lawful.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff is a person who newly constructed the main apartment complex C in Busan Dong-gu and is from No. 4 to E.

참조판례

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

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2021.04.08 2020나73020

-서울서부지방법원 2020.07.17 2019나36718

-부산지방법원 2019.01.23 2018나43101

-부산지방법원 2019.03.27 2018나53870

-부산지방법원 2018.10.24 2018나2070