logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.28 2020나3801
토지인도 등 청구의 소
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

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

(a)The following facts of recognition are apparent or obvious to this Court in the records:

(1) On March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and on June 4, 2019, a duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant.

(2) On September 4, 2019, the first instance court: (a) designated the Defendant on September 4, 2019 as the first date for pleading and served a notice of the date for pleading to the Defendant at the address at which a duplicate of the complaint was served; (b) on August 23, 2019, the notice was sent on August 28, 2019.

(3) After October 30, 2019, the first instance court: (a) designated the Defendant as the date for the second pleading on which a duplicate of the complaint was served to the Defendant; (b) served the notice on the date for the first instance court’s pleading on September 11, 2019; and (c) served the notice on the Defendant on September 20, 2019, as it was not served as a closed door absence.

(4) On October 30, 2019, the first instance court closed the pleadings and designated November 13, 2019 as the sentencing date. The notice of sentencing was served on the Defendant’s address where the duplicate of the complaint was served. On November 6, 2019, the notice of sentencing was not served on the closed door, and was served on November 7, 2019.

(5) On November 13, 2019, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, and served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the Defendant’s domicile where the duplicate of the complaint was served, but is not served as a closed door absence. As such, on November 29, 2019, the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice and the service became effective on December 14, 2019.

(6) On January 7, 2020, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for the subsequent completion.

B. (1) The “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct procedural acts. As such, the document of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice.

arrow