According to the records of this case, when New Chang Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Trade”) filed a lawsuit against the appellant for the purchase-price claim against the appellant, this court may recognize the fact that on September 1, 2004, the appellant sent a certified copy of the decision on the execution recommendation of this case to the execution officer belonging to the Seoul Western District Court (hereinafter “execution officer”), who is the competent court at the domicile of the appellant, visiting the domicile of the appellant to the domicile of the appellant and then notified the appellant of the certified copy of the decision on the execution recommendation of this case. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18587, Nov. 13, 2004>

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(1) The son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’

3. Determination

A. As to the receipt ability

According to Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, when a person to receive service has not been present at a place other than a place of service, documents may be delivered to his office worker, employee, or cohabitant who is man of sense. Here, “person who is man of sense” means a person who has the ability to understand the purpose of service and deliver received documents to the person to receive service, even if it is not necessary to understand the validity of the general judicial system or procedural acts.

According to the records of this case, the appellant's son who received the certified copy of the recommendation of this case was a person living with the appellant on July 17, 1996 and can be recognized as having been a second-year student at an elementary school as a child of the age of 8 and 13, 2004 at the time of receipt of the above documents. To this extent, it can be seen as being a person with intelligence to distinguish the number of documents served, so the supplementary service for Park Jong-sik is lawful. Thus, this part of the appellant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the legitimacy of the service of enforcement officers

As seen earlier, so long as Park Jong-sung, a person living together with the appellant, received a certified copy of the instant recommendations and served supplementary documents are lawful, even if an execution officer did not comply with an application for the night service of new and creative trade and served the said documents on the day without complying with the application for the night service of new and creative trade, the above service shall be effective, and therefore, the appellant’

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court below that dismissed the appellant's objection against the decision of performance recommendation of this case is just, and there is no reason to revoke the order of the court below ex officio differently from the record. Thus, the appellant's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-hee (Presiding Judge) Lease