logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.08 2015나2038574 (1)
매매대금
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legality of subsequent appeal

A. If the original copy, the original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da41318, Oct. 17, 2013). B.

According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on June 5, 2015 after serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant, the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and then serving the Defendant by public notice on June 8, 2015, and the original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice, and the Defendant can be recognized as having received a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance on July 20, 2015 and received a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance, thereby having become aware that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice and filed an appeal subsequent to July 30, 2015.

Therefore, the defendant is unable to comply with the appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to him. Thus, the appeal filed within two weeks from the date the judgment of the court of first instance became aware of the fact by public notice is lawful.

C. On the other hand, the court of first instance shall subsequently complete the petition of appeal against the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act.

arrow