(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.03.28 2018나3188 | 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 2019.03.28 2018나3188

구상금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

Reasons

1. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment regarding the legitimacy of the appeal of this case were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. 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 after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "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 circumstance. Thus, in ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware

(2) According to the records, the court of first instance is recognized on May 22, 2017, with the knowledge of the fact that the records of this case were perused and delivered by public notice to the Defendant on February 24, 2006. In light of the records, the court of first instance is recognized to have filed an appeal to complete the instant case on May 22, 2017, with the knowledge of the fact that the first instance court’s perusal of the records of this case was served by public notice.

Thus, the appeal of this case was filed within two weeks from the date the defendant knew that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice, and is lawful.

2. Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Supreme Court rendered a final and conclusive judgment as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit has res judicata effect, the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party to the previous lawsuit is again entitled to the same claim as that of the final

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2004다8005 판결

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.11.30 2018나38465

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.06 2020나41520

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.09 2018나26719

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.20 2019나69119

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.08 2019나10537