[2] The case holding that it is erroneous for a company which is a creditor of the provisional disposition application to promptly send documents without regard to service as the principal office or representative director's domicile on the register of corporate registry where it is impossible to serve the documents as the previous service place because it did not report the change in the service place

[2] The case holding that it is erroneous for a company which is the creditor of the provisional disposition application to promptly send the documents without regard to the location of its head office or representative director's domicile on the register of juristic persons, where it is impossible to serve the documents as the previous service place because it did not report the change in the service place

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below entered the above provisional disposition in the address of the creditor as "( Address 1 omitted)", but issued a provisional disposition, and then submitted a correction of address to the address of Songpa-gu (Seoul address 2 omitted) on June 4, 199, the non-party (hereinafter referred to as "the address of this case"), which was the representative director of the creditor's place of service, entered in the provisional disposition as "the address of the creditor's office was not the address of the creditor's address," and the court which was in charge of the order of provisional disposition was sent to the address of this case on November 11 and 30, 199, which did not appear at the address of the creditor's office, but did not serve the above provisional disposition to the address of the creditor's address on which the non-party was not the address of the creditor's 1,000,000 won after the above provisional disposition was sent to the address of this case.

2. Article 171-2(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when a party, his legal representative, or his legal representative changes the place to be served without delay, the purport thereof shall be reported to the court. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that a service of documents to a person who has failed to make a report under paragraph (1) may be made by registered mail at the place where the previous service is made only when the place to be served is unknown, and "if the place to be served is unknown" as mentioned above, it is reasonable to say that the service by registered mail may be made only when the other party issues an order to correct his address or ex officio investigate his resident registration card, etc., but it is not necessary to do so until the place to be served is unknown (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da23464 delivered on September 26, 1997).

In this case, the creditor reported the address of this case, which is a place of the main office or the representative director's address, which is a place of the third party other than the address on the corporate registry, and the original copy, etc. of the order of lawsuit was served to the address of this case, and at the time of service of the summons of each date of pleading two times or more, the creditor failed to report the purport to the court even though the creditor had already changed the place of pleading and failed to report it to the court. In this case, the court should have served the summons of the date of pleading at the address of representative director of the creditor or the seat of the creditor's main office, which is presented in the record, and should have been served at the address of this case, which is the place of the previous service only when the document was not served. However, it is erroneous for the creditor to serve the summons of the date of pleading to the previous reported address and immediately send it by registered mail upon the creditor's request for designation of the date of pleading, and it does not violate the principle of trust and good faith.

Nevertheless, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements under Article 171-2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)