(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.03.19 2020나577

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.03.19 2020나577

대여금

Text

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

Reasons

1. According to the records of this case, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the defendant, a notice of the date of pleading, etc. as to each public notice, and declared a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on June 17, 201 after the pleading was made. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by means of public notice, and the defendant was issued a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance court on February 4, 2020 and filed an appeal on February 17, 2020 after receiving the certified copy of the judgment of the first instance court on February 4, 2020.

Thus, the defendant could not comply with the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, because he was unaware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered through the public notice service without negligence, and the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion of the case is deemed to have been filed within 2 weeks from the date he knew that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by the public notice service. Thus, the defendant

The plaintiff was already aware of the judgment of the court of first instance at the time when the plaintiff received a seizure order, seizure and collection order against the automobile around 2012, and deposit claims.

However, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice solely because the Defendant was aware of the existence of the Plaintiff’s claim.

In light of the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 4 and 5, it is difficult to see that all of the cases Nos. 18479 and the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2012 and the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2012Kadan4570 applied by the Plaintiff can be recognized as having been served on the Defendant. Thus, the above argument by the Plaintiff is without merit.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 20, 2006, the Plaintiff, as a registered credit service provider, lent to the Defendant the amount of KRW 3.6 million at the interest rate of 60% per annum on September 20, 2007, and paid to the Defendant the remainder after deducting the interest of KRW 1.8 million from the one-month advance payment period (hereinafter “the instant loan”), and at the time C.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2015.10.23 2014나5009

-창원지방법원 2020.01.17 2019나733

-수원지방법원 2020.07.01 2019나62161

-부산지방법원 2017.11.29 2016나48652

-서울동부지방법원 2020.01.31 2018나29766