(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.07.03 2014나1971

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) 서울북부지방법원 2015.07.03 2014나1971

계금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Whether an appeal after subsequent completion is lawful or not, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on June 29, 2005 after serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date of pleading by public notice, and proceeding with pleadings on June 29, 2005. On the same day, the original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by means of service by public notice. On March 10, 2014, the defendant served a notice of assignment of claims (No. 2) with the plaintiff and became aware of the fact that the first instance court rendered a judgment, and thereafter became aware of the fact that the defendant filed an appeal after subsequent completion of the case on March 20, 2014, which is not more than two weeks thereafter, can be acknowledged by the record or comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire

According to the above facts of recognition, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. Thus, the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

Therefore, the appeal by the subsequent completion of this case filed by the defendant within two weeks from the time the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive is lawful.

2. The plaintiff's assertion: ① 2.1 million won per day from October 3, 1995 to May 2, 1996; ② 1.7 million won per day from April 16, 1995 to May 15, 196; ③ 3.6 million won per day from April 18, 1995 to May 17, 1996; and 6.3.3 million won per day from May 16, 1996 to 3.9 million won; and 4.6 million won per day from May 17, 1996 to 3.3.9 billion won; and 4.6 million won per day from May 30, 199 to 9.6 billion won; and 4.6 million won per day from May 30, 1994 to 9.6.4 million won per day.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 46.2 million and delay damages.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원천안지원 2017.11.15 2017가단182

-서울동부지방법원 2014.01.23 2013고단3119

-울산지방법원 2020.04.29 2019가단109703

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.21 2013가단341825

-수원지방법원 2018.12.20 2018가단524098