logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.11.20 2015나2593
소유권이전등기
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. The following facts are remarkable in this Court:

On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant under the name of the Defendant, and the fact-finding inquiry, thereby correcting the Defendant’s address to “Seongnam-gu, Sungnam-si D” which is the Defendant’s resident registration address.

On October 8, 2014, the court of the first instance served a copy of the complaint and a litigation guide, etc. in the method of serving the defendant's above address (hereinafter "the address of this case"), and E, the defendant's spouse, received them on October 28, 2014.

B. As the Defendant did not submit a written reply within 30 days from the date of receipt, the court of first instance designated the date of pronouncement of a judgment without pleading, and served the notice of the date of pronouncement by mail at the address of this case, but was impossible to serve the notice by mail on three occasions due to “closed absence,” and on December 15, 2014, sent the notice of the date of pronouncement to the Defendant by registered mail.

C. On December 18, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a ruling of the first instance that accepts all the claims of the Plaintiffs, and on December 23, 2015, served the Defendant with the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the domicile of the instant case on three occasions, and served the original copy of the judgment on January 6, 2015, and served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on three occasions due to the absence of closure, and served the said service by public notice on January 21, 2015.

On April 8, 2015, the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal.

2. We examine the determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal; however, in order to recognize the subsequent appeal under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act as lawful, the parties could not comply with the peremptory term of the appeal due to any cause not attributable to them; and in order to file an appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist; and “reasons not attributable to the parties” refers to the period, even though the parties had exercised their general care to conduct the said procedural acts.

arrow