beta
(영문) 대법원 1969. 2. 19. 선고 69마1721 판결

[부동산경락허가결정에대한재항고][집17(1)민,215]

Main Issues

If it is impossible for an addressee to serve documents due to the cause of long-term travel, service by public notice shall not be made.

Summary of Judgment

If it is impossible for the addressee to serve a service due to the reason that he is on a long-term travel, service by public notice shall not

(84.3.15.84Ma20) The abolition of this Order shall be the en banc Order

[Reference Provisions]

Article 179(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Appellant 1 et al.

United States of America

Seoul Civil Affairs Area

Reasons

Of the grounds for the reappeals by the auction court, the notice of auction date to the Re-Appellants is illegal. According to the records, the notice of auction date Nos. 1, 2, and 3 was served to the Re-Appellants (the address omitted) and the date of the fourth auction (the date of September 26, 1968. 26. 10. 10. 26. 10) was served to the above place, but it is possible to confirm the fact that the delivery was impossible due to the addressee's long-term travel (see, e.g., Chapter 105. 105). In the above case, the mail delivery prescribed in Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act is not known, but in the above case, although the auction court did not meet the requirements for service by public notice under Article 179(1) of the same Act, it cannot be served by the method of public notice of auction date on Oct. 25, 1968.

Justices Yu Jae-gu (Presiding Justice) Doh-dong (Presiding Justice)