(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.10.16 2015나2665 | 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) 광주지방법원 2015.10.16 2015나2665

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal of this case 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 are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence No. 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence No. 4-1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings in this court.

1) On August 3, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant and the co-defendant B of the first instance court as the Gwangju District Court 2005da54130, and the Defendant was not served with the duplicate, etc. of the complaint, the court of first instance served the Defendant by means of service by public notice. 2) On April 18, 2006, the court of first instance sentenced the Defendant on April 25, 2006 after the closure of the pleadings on April 18, 2006. On April 27, 2006, the original of the judgment was served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and the service was effective on April 28, 2006.

3) On June 15, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order against the Defendant and the co-defendant B of the first instance court as the executive title. The above court issued the seizure and collection order on July 3, 2009, and the original copy of the decision was served on the Defendant on July 15, 2009. Meanwhile, on July 10, 2009, the Defendant filed an application for perusal and reproduction of the above case with the above court on March 12, 2015.

B. In light of the above facts, if the parties were unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them, the litigation may be supplemented within two weeks from the date when such cause ceases to exist (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, on July 10, 2009, knew of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was delivered by public notice by copying the record of the above claim seizure and collection order from the Gwangju District Court, thereby making a copy of the record of the above claim seizure and collection order. Accordingly, the Defendant’s failure

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.4.12.선고 2017나5504 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.12 2017나2593

-전주지방법원 2018.04.12 2017나5504

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.03 2017나1467

-부산고등법원(창원) 2015.11.04 2014나3729