(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.03.26 2014나13981

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) 대구지방법원 2015.03.26 2014나13981

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment regarding the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case were served by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, unless there are special circumstances. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) from the date on which the cause ceases to exist (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Here, the "date on which 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, and further, the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, unless there are other special circumstances.

(2) On October 27, 2008, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on December 10, 2008, after receiving an order to serve the Defendant by public notice on February 24, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). According to the records, the court of first instance issued an order to serve the Defendant by public notice on October 27, 2008, and the court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on December 10, 2008. The original judgment also served the Defendant by public notice on December 12, 2008. The Defendant was not aware of the fact that the judgment of first instance was pronounced, and only after receiving the original copy of the judgment, the court of first instance became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice on August 7, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant's subsequent appeal of this case is filed within the lawful appeal period.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2004다8005 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2014.12.04 2014나6648

-대구고등법원 2021.04.09 2018나160

-대구지방법원 2015.04.30 2014나14793

-대구지방법원 2015.09.24 2015나500

-대구지방법원 2015.12.10 2015나12244