(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.05.03 2018나62186

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) 서울남부지방법원 2019.05.03 2018나62186

선임료반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

(a) The following facts are apparent in the records of recognition:

1) The Plaintiff appeared at the first instance court on March 21, 2018, and on April 24, 2018, the date for the first instance court’s pleading, respectively, and was notified as of April 18, 2018. 2) The court of first instance rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 18, 2018, and served the original copy by means of public notice, who was unable to serve on the Plaintiff due to the absence of closure on three occasions. The original copy of the judgment was deemed to reach at the time of May 24, 2018.

3) After having received the original copy of the judgment on August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted the instant written appeal against the judgment of the first instance court on September 3, 2018. (B) Determination 1) “A party’s failure to comply with the time limit,” as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, refers to a cause for not complying with the said time limit despite the party’s due care to perform procedural acts. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary method during the process of litigation and served by means of service by public notice, the Plaintiff is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party’s failure to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to the party.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 11, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). 2, in light of the foregoing legal principles, the Plaintiff directly attended the instant lawsuit and was notified by the date the judgment was rendered, and thus, the Plaintiff was obligated to investigate the progress of the instant lawsuit, but did not confirm the

Therefore, there is a reason that the plaintiff cannot be responsible.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 10. 11. 선고 2012다44730 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.11.07 2018나1596

-부산지방법원 2018.11.14 2018나2728

-창원지방법원 2017.08.10 2017나51553

-서울남부지방법원 2020.02.07 2019나54854