logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.01.22 2015나6581
임대차보증금
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. If the original copy of a complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was not aware 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 term due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the case where the party or legal representative does not know the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, when the party or legal representative peruses the records of the case or

(2) The court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment on June 17, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 2013). As to the instant case, the health department and the court of first instance rendered a judgment on winning the Plaintiff on June 17, 2015 by serving a copy of the complaint and a notice on the date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice. The original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant on June 27, 2015 by means of service by public notice. The fact that the Defendant submitted a written corrective appeal to the court of first instance on August 20, 2015 is apparent in the record. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant was found to have been sentenced to the first instance judgment following the Plaintiff’s proceeding for the seizure of corporeal movables based on the judgment of the first instance court on August 8, 2015. According to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant cannot comply with the period of appeal.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) Evidence A, Nos. 1, 2, and 2.

arrow