logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.07.17 2019나36718
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of a judgment regarding the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when either the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstance. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact

(2) According to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 16, 2019 and served the original copy of the judgment by public notice to the Defendant on February 24, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). According to the records, the court of first instance is recognized that the Defendant filed an application for perusal of the trial records with the court of first instance on July 9, 2019, and obtained the original copy of the judgment by public notice, and became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and filed the appeal of this case on July 12, 2019.

Thus, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case due to a cause not attributable to himself.

As such, within two weeks from the time the reason ceases to exist.

arrow