beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.02.01 2018나55602

손해배상(기)

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. Whether the appeal is lawful after subsequent completion;

(a) Service is conducted at the domicile, residence, business office or office of the person to whom the recipient of service is served, and, if the place is unknown or the service is not possible at such place, the domicile, etc. of another person to whom the recipient of service is employed by employment, delegation, or other legal action (hereinafter “work place”).

Article 183(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Service may be effected at a work site (Article 183(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act). In principle, delivery to the person to receive the service is to be made; when the service agency fails to retain the person to receive the service at the work site, the service may be made to another person under Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, or his/her legal representative or employee, who is man of sense, unless he/she refuses to receive the service (Article 186(2) of the same Act). If a supplementary service is made, the service is made at the time of delivery of the litigation document by office staff, employee, cohabitant, etc., and the final receipt of the above document or the time thereof does not have any relation to the validity of the service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu405, Jun. 26, 1984).

The phrase “reasons for which a party cannot be held responsible” refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period despite the party’s due care to conduct the procedural acts. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of service by public notice while the lawsuit was in progress, and the documents of lawsuit are served by means of service by public notice, the first delivery of the copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was proceeded by public notice is different from the case where the lawsuit was proceeded by public notice.