logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.18 2016나61556
양수금
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

Reasons

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. If the original copy, the original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to reasons not attributable to him/her

Here, the term “when a cause ceases 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, and, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the records of the case were perused, or

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410 delivered on October 24, 1997). B.

If Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 added the purport of the entire pleadings, ① the first instance court, upon the plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, shall make a decision of performance recommendation on September 14, 2015 and deliver it to the defendant on September 17, 2015 and September 29, 2015, but is not served as a closed door absence, ② the plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit on September 10, 2015

6. Upon filing an application for lawsuit, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the defendant, notification of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and proceeded with pleadings on February 2, 2016, and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on February 2, 2016. The judgment also served the original copy by public notice and became effective on February 6, 2016.

arrow