(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.12 2015나11340

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) 대구지방법원 2016.05.12 2015나11340

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the subsequent appeal of this case is unlawful, since the duplicate, etc. of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant’s residence, but the Defendant intentionally avoided service.

If a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were 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 is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal to complete the service within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time such cause ceases

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, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the

(see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). According to the records of this case, the court of first instance may serve the defendant by means of service, such as a duplicate of the complaint against the defendant, a notice of the date of pleading, etc., and then serve the defendant by means of service, and render a judgment that accepts the plaintiff's claim on May 12, 2015 after the pleading is in progress, and the original copy of the judgment also serves the defendant by means of service by public notice on May 14, 201

In the absence of any evidence to deem that the Defendant himself/herself or his/her attorney had already been aware of the fact of the first instance judgment and the fact that the said judgment was served by means of service by public notice from July 21, 2015 when the appeal for subsequent completion was filed, the Defendant cannot be held liable.

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2004다8005 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.04.17 2017나67193

-부산고등법원 2016.11.17 2015나2706

-서울고등법원 2016.03.24 2014나51802

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.01.16 2017나428

-대구지방법원 2016.08.11 2015나17577