[2] The case where a delivery can be made by registered mail under Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[3] The case holding that the court's measure of delivery by registered mail immediately without regard to the delivery of the original copy again to the place of service or domicile reported by the appellant, in case where the appellant filed a report again on the same place as the previous one after the original copy of the decision delivered to the place of service on the written complaint was impossible, and then the appellant filed a report on the same place as

[2] The place to be served by registered mail under Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a lawful place where a person to receive service, such as his/her office worker, employee, cohabitant, etc., is not only a delivery method, but also a supplementary delivery and a delivery cannot be made under Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Act, because there is no person to receive supplementary service, such as his/her office worker, employee, cohabitant, etc., or there is no person to receive supplementary service. Here, the place to be served refers to a lawful place where a person to receive service, such as his/her domicile, residence, place of business or office, is likely to receive the litigation documents.

[3] The case holding that in case where the appellant filed a report again on the same place as the previous one after the appellant was unable to serve the original copy of the decision served as the service place indicated in the petition of appeal, and then the appellant filed a report on the same place as the previous one, the court's measure which immediately sent the original copy by registered mail without regard to the service place reported by the appellant to

Article 185(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party, legal representative, or attorney has altered the place where a service is to be made, the purport thereof shall be immediately reported to the court." Article 185(2) of the same Act provides that "in case where the place where service is to be made to a person who has failed to make a report under paragraph (1) is unknown, the service may be made by means of registered mail, as prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations, at the former place where service is to be made, in a case where the place where service is to be made is not known," and Article 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "in case where the place where service is to be made is not known, by registered mail," under Article 185(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "in case where the place where service is to be made by registered mail is to be made by the other party or ex officio, it is reasonable to say that the service may be made by means of registered mail only if the place is not known as at least the record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2005Ma65, Sept. 28, 20

In addition, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a service cannot be made pursuant to the provisions of Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Act, a junior administrative officer, etc. may send the documents by registered mail or other means as determined by the Supreme Court Regulations." The service by registered mail under the above provision refers to a lawful place where a person to receive service such as his/her domicile, residence, place of business or office, etc. is likely to receive the litigation documents, as well as the service by a person to receive a supplementary service, such as his/her office, employee, live-in person, etc., does not exist or there is no person to receive a supplementary service, as well as the person to receive a service by registered mail under the above provision.

2. According to the records, the re-appellant (debtor and appellant) entered his address on February 12, 2007 as Lee Dong-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (number 1 omitted). The court of first instance sent the notice of attendance to the above address to hear the opinion, and the court of first instance rejected the re-appellant's request of this case on November 21, 2007. The court of first instance ordered the re-appellant to serve the above address on December 7, 2007 because the above notice was not served for the addressee's absence and closure absence, and the court of second instance ordered the re-appellant to serve on the same address on January 23, 2009 as his address, and the above address on March 3, 200, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul (number 2 omitted), and the place of service as his address on March 24, 200, 2000 after serving the above order to serve the original copy on the court of first instance on the date of second instance.

In light of the above legal principles, the court of the court below should have served the original copy again to the above service place or address reported by the re-appellant, and should have served the original copy by registered mail only when it is not served to the above service place or address. It is erroneous for the court below to have served the original copy by registered mail immediately without reaching this point.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s order which determined that the reappeal of this case was filed later than the re-appeal period, on the premise that the delivery of the above dispatch is lawful, erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the delivery of dispatch, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for reappeal are with merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of reappeal, we reverse the order of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)