logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.13 2017나4750
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) from the date the cause ceases to exist. Here, the "date on which 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 became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, in ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).

On July 14, 2016, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant by serving a copy of the complaint, notification of date for pleading, etc. on the defendant by public notice, and rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiffs on July 14, 2016. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice. On December 29, 2016, the defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment of this case immediately after being issued by the court of first instance on December 29, 2016 and being aware that the above judgment was served by public notice. The fact that the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of the judgment of this case on the date of the above issuance is apparent in the record. As such, the appeal for subsequent completion of the judgment of the first instance filed within two weeks from the date on which he became aware of the fact that the

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion.

arrow