(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.12.03 2015나6269 | 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) 창원지방법원 2015.12.03 2015나6269

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

The term "after the cause has ceased to exist" refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013). B.

According to the records of this case, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting all the plaintiff's claims against the defendant on November 11, 201. On November 15, 201, the original of the judgment was served on the defendant on the title of execution on June 30, 2015, and the plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to the defendant's deposit claims against the financial institution by designating the title of execution on the first instance judgment as the title of execution on June 30, 2015. The defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the defendant's deposit claims from the financial institution around that time, and became aware of the progress and result of the first instance lawsuit, and filed the appeal of this case on July 8,

C. When considering these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal is due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant, and therefore, the Defendant knew that the judgment of the first instance was served by service by publication.

참조판례

-대법원 2013. 1. 10. 선고 2010다75044,75051 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.10.06 2016나1036

-대구지방법원 2016.10.27 2016나8174

-대구지방법원 2017.01.19 2016나6642

-대구지방법원 2016.10.27 2016나4271

-창원지방법원 2015.12.24 2015나5273