logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2019.06.12 2018나15893
매매대금
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 on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. On August 2, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order to the court of first instance against the Defendant and C. On August 7, 2017, the original copy of the payment order was served to the Defendant’s work partner M on August 7, 2017, and on August 9, 2017, the Defendant delegated attorneys NN to submit a written objection for payment order and submitted a written objection for payment order to the court of first instance (C submitted a written objection for payment order to the court of first instance on August 17, 2017).

(2) On August 25, 2017, the first instance court served a notice of the date of pleading on August 25, 2017 on the Defendant himself/herself.

On September 4, 2017, the defendant submitted a written answer to the court of first instance through Attorney N on September 4, 2017.

3) On September 12, 2017, the Defendant and C submitted a letter of delegation of lawsuit to the court of first instance that “an attorney-at-law shall be appointed as an attorney-at-law.” The court of first instance thereafter served a notice on the date for pleading and a preparatory document, etc. on D.) on August 9, 2018. The court of first instance rendered a ruling accepting the Plaintiff’s claim in entirety, and served the certified copy to D on August 13, 2018.

5) A lawyer D submitted a petition of appeal to the court of first instance on August 24, 2018. On September 4, 2018, a junior administrative officer who was ordered by the presiding judge of the first instance trial ordered D to revise KRW 2,201,80 and service fees of KRW 135,00,00 to D, but he did not revise D. Accordingly, the presiding judge of the first instance court ordered D to dismiss the petition of appeal on September 13, 2018 on the ground of the failure to correct the stamp, etc. The original copy was served on the Defendant on September 17, 2018. The order to dismiss the petition of appeal was served on the Defendant himself. The order to dismiss the petition of appeal contains the court (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch), the case number and name (2017Gahap86), the parties (the Plaintiff A, Defendant B, and one other, and the order contains the text of the case, and did not perform the correction within the period of time.

arrow