logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.17 2017나71002
가등기에 기한 본등기 청구
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 parties’ defense prior to the merits

A. As to the plaintiff's defense prior to the merits, the plaintiff neglected his duty to confirm the progress of the lawsuit of this case even after being served with the duplicate of the complaint of this case on September 4, 2014. Thus, the appeal of this case is unlawful, and even if the defendant was not served with the duplicate of the complaint of this case, the defendant has been engaged in the business of leasing and selling real estate, etc. for several years, and the provisional registration of this case has been left alone for several years, and filed an appeal of this case to complete the appeal of this case. The appeal of this case is unlawful.

A subsequent completion of procedural acts as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act may be made in cases where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them. Here, “reasons not attributable to the parties” refers to cases where the parties are unable to comply with the given period despite they fulfilled generally required care to conduct the procedural acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da44679, Sept. 24, 2009). In cases where a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service without negligence. In such cases, where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to it, and where it is deemed that the defendant was aware of the fact that there was the judgment and there were special circumstances to recognize such fact, and thus, it cannot be seen that the judgment became void as a matter of course at the time when the facts had been served by public notice by public notice was known.

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on February 9, 199

arrow