(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.03.31 2016나8987 | 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) 서울고등법원 2017.03.31 2016나8987

물품대금등

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation conducted by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the period, even though the party performed his/her duty of care to conduct the litigation, even though he/she had fulfilled his/her duty of care to do so.

However, if the original copy of the judgment was delivered to the defendant through service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant did not know the service of the judgment without fault, and if the defendant was sentenced without knowing the fact that the lawsuit has been pending from the beginning and the defendant became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice and became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal due

(2) According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on April 16, 2015 after both a copy of the complaint and a written notice of date for pleading against the Defendant were served by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was served to the Defendant by public notice at that time. The Defendant becomes aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was rendered only on June 9, 2016, and that the Defendant filed the instant appeal for subsequent completion on June 15, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case was filed within two weeks from the date on which the Defendant became aware that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice, and is lawful by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion

2. The facts below the findings of recognition are disputed between the Parties.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2005다27195 판결

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2020.04.29 2019나10699

-부산지방법원 2020.04.10 2019나4356

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.13 2018나22656

-부산고등법원(창원) 2016.12.22 2016나45

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.12 2017나3429