logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.09.14 2017나4158
양수금
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor B.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, the first instance court served a copy of complaint against the defendant by public notice, notification of the date for pleading, etc. on March 26, 2007, and rendered a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on March 26, 2007, and served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice. On May 16, 2017, the defendant was served with a copy of the complaint of the lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2017 Ghana5780427) brought by the succeeding intervenor on May 16, 2017, and only filed an appeal for subsequent completion on May 29, 2017, when he knows that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice, which was later served on the defendant by public notice. Thus, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion of the lawsuit in this case is a legitimate appeal satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of litigation.

2. The defendant's father B (the deceased on December 30, 2004; hereinafter "the deceased") made a judgment on the cause of the claim.

arrow