logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.05.12 2016다3935
약정금반환
Text

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

ex officio, the appeal of this case is examined as legitimate.

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party is not liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though he/she had been generally required to perform the procedural acts. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a usual way during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a normal way, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is attributable to any reason for which the period cannot be held liable.

(1) According to the records, the lower court’s junior administrative officer served a certified copy of the order to prepare tin and a notice of date for pleading, etc. on the place of service indicated in the written complaint of Ratification, and received it by the Defendant’s clerical staff member as a supplementary service. Accordingly, the lower court’s first date for pleading was present at the lower court’s first date for pleading, and the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing appeal, and served the original copy of the judgment to the place of service, but was not served by public notice on January 20, 2015. In so doing, the lower court’s appellate court’s delivery of the original copy to the Defendant by public notice on January 20, 2015 can be seen as having served two weeks after the original copy of the judgment became effective by public notice to the Defendant. The lower court’s subsequent notice was submitted to the lower court on December 29, 2015.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the defendant should have reported the change of address to the court, as well as seek confirmation from the court, and the progress and result of the lawsuit in this case.

arrow