logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.06.23 2016나2377
자동차소유권이전등록절차인수청구
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 are apparent in, or obvious to, a record:

1) On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the procedure for, and acquisition of, the transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. On September 16, 2015, the court of first instance (hereinafter “duplicate, etc.”) rendered a copy of the complaint, a written application for modification of the purport of the claim, and a written application for correction of the indication of a party (hereinafter “duplicate, etc.”).

(2) On October 6, 2015, the court of first instance sent a copy, etc. of the complaint to the same address of the defendant on September 6, 2015, based on the correction of the Plaintiff’s address, and on October 9, 2015, the Defendant’s live together with his/her spouse and E, who is the spouse, received the same.

3) On November 25, 2015, the court of first instance, sent the notice to the Defendant by mail to the above address, but on December 1, 2015, when the service was impossible due to the absence of a closed door, served the notice by means of delivery on December 7, 2015. 4) The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on January 7, 2016, and then sent the original of the judgment to the Defendant by mail to the above address on the following day. On January 16, 2016, when the service was impossible due to a closed door, the presiding judge of the first instance court ordered the Defendant to serve the original of the judgment on January 21, 2016 by ordering the Defendant to serve the service of the original of the judgment on the website of the Supreme Court and became effective on February 5, 2016.

5 The Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion on March 7, 2016.

B. The phrase “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to reasons why the party could not comply with the period even though the party fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the procedural acts. Thus, where the service of documents related to the lawsuit was impossible as a result of the failure of being served during the process of the lawsuit, the service of documents related to the lawsuit would be made by public notice.

arrow