Time limit and the reasons why the parties cannot be responsible;

Even if the Defendant had failed to appear at the date of pleading because the Defendant intended to take a business trip at a place of business that he/she has neglected to manage, but failed to appear at the date of pleading due to a heavy winding, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s domicile constitutes a case where the party under Article 241(3) of the Civil Procedure Act was unable to appear on the date of pleading due to a cause not attributable to him/her

Articles 241(3) and 241(4) of the Civil Procedure Act

Note 5

Yong-Nam

Gwangju District Court Decision (86 Ghana1995)

The instant lawsuit is deemed to have been withdrawn on October 30, 1987 and was terminated.

The appeal costs after the request for designation of the date of this case shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,284,010 won with 25 percent interest per annum from September 16, 1986 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

According to the records of this case, the defendant, who is the appellant on the fifth day of July 10, 1987, 14:00 at the trial, was present without being present at the court, but did not present at the court, and it is apparent that he was not present at the court on the seventh day of October 30, 1987, 197, and thus, the defendant was not present at the court and the defendant was not present at all on the seventh day of pleading 10:00 of October 30, 1987, and barring any special circumstances, this case

On October 29, 1987, the defendant was going to go to a business trip in Yannam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, a business establishment of the defendant's place of business, in order to leave 07:30 times to appear in the court by October 30, 1987, which was designated as the seventh date for pleading, but was unable to appear in 09:30 times due to typhoon warning. The defendant's attitude of the above date is based on the reason that it cannot be held responsible to the defendant, and therefore, the defendant's application for the designation of the date was filed on November 26, 1987 (the defendant has already stated the same purport in the application for the pleading on November 2, 1987, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the above application for designation of the date has already been made within a legitimate period of time, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant had already been 3:4:00 mar-dong 14:00 mar-dong 190 mar 197.

Therefore, the defendant's motion to designate the date of appeal of this case is without merit, and the lawsuit of this case is terminated on October 30, 1987 due to the defendant's withdrawal of appeal of this case, so it is declared, and the costs of appeal after the request to designate the date shall be borne by the applicant party, and it

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)