(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.12.17 2015나4942

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.12.17 2015나4942

보증금반환

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

We examine the legality of the appeal of this case.

1. The following facts are significant in this Court:

On February 9, 2015, a copy of the complaint filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant on February 13, 2015, was lawfully served on the Defendant on the 13th day of the same month in the claim for refund of deposit money amounting to 2015 Ghana7340, but the participating officer of the first instance trial, who was not served on the Defendant on the 1st day notice for pleading, was served on the Defendant by delivery by registered mail, and thereafter,

6. On the first day for pleading, the first instance court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on the same day, where the pleading was concluded as the date was in progress while only the Plaintiff was present at the court on the first day for pleading and the Defendant was absent.

The above participant shall not serve the original copy of the above judgment on the defendant because the director is not known.

7. 17. In accordance with an order of the presiding judge by public notice, service of the original copy of the judgment by public notice, and the same year;

8.1. The judgment shall reach the Defendant, and the above judgment shall reach the Defendant for the same year.

8. It was finalized on 18.1

B. On September 12, 2015, the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment at the expiration of 14 days from the date of arrival of the original copy of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s exercise of general duty to act in the course of litigation. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by public notice. As such, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to comply with the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is due to any reason for not being held liable to the party, even if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to comply with the peremptory period.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.01.10 2017나46257

-서울서부지방법원 2015.11.12 2015나32275

-대법원 2016.05.12 2016다3935

-의정부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나3275

-서울서부지방법원 2016.10.06 2016나794