B. In the case of paragraph (a), the re capital reduction requests the recovery of the right to request a formal trial separately from the Do of the period for requesting a formal trial.

Whether it is necessary

B. In the case of Paragraph (a), since the service of the summary order is null and void, the period of the request for the formal trial does not run in itself, and if the request for the formal trial was filed along with the request for the recovery of the right to request the formal trial, the request for the formal trial becomes effective independently as a legitimate request within the period of request. Therefore, it is not necessary for the parties to the formal trial to request the recovery of the right to request the formal trial, unless they receive the judgment in accordance with the procedure of request for the formal trial

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, since a certified copy of the summary order of this case was served on the appellant's mother at his domicile on July 19, 194, the court below affirmed the decision of the court of first instance dismissing the complaint of this case on the ground that, even though the appellant was detained in another criminal case, such circumstance alone does not constitute a case where the period of request for formal trial is extended due to a cause not attributable to Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and even if according to the appellant's assertion, even though he knew of the fact that the above summary order was notified, it is not proper to request the recovery of the claim for formal trial of this case from the appellant on the ground that the appellant did not know the fact that the appellant was detained in another criminal case, and it is not proper to dismiss the complaint of this case on the ground that there was no vindication as to the grounds cited by the appellant.

If the service of the summary order for capital reduction was made to the previous main place or residence before the prison, etc. is confined to the prison, etc.'s place of residence, it shall not be deemed null and void due to its illegality, and even if the court of the lawsuit did not know the identification of the party or the person involved in the litigation and did it to the previous main place or residence (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Meu349, Dec. 28, 1982). Thus, as long as the service itself is illegal, the service itself does not become effective even if the party was informed of the fact notified of the summary order by other means, as argued by the appellant, even if the copy of the summary order of this case was served to the appellant at the domicile of another criminal case, such service shall be deemed null and void, and even if the appellant knew of the fact that the summary order was notified by other means, it does not take effect, and thus, it shall not take effect at any time and at any time, a formal trial as a formal trial, and shall not take effect.

Therefore, the court below's dismissal of the appellant's claim for the recovery of the formal trial of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In addition, even if there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was confined to the prison at the time of service of the summary order of this case, the defendant's request for the recovery of the formal trial of this case was submitted in the name of each Daegu prison (which was December 5, 1994) and the request for the formal trial of this case (which was January 21, 1995) and the written appeal for the formal trial of this case were submitted in the name of each Daegu prison, and the decision to dismiss the request for the recovery of the formal trial of this case was also received by the head of Daegu prison (which was January 18, 195). In light of the fact that the mother of the appellant could have been deemed to have been the appellant at the time of receipt of the summary order of this case, it shall be deemed that there was no error in the misapprehension of the above grounds without requiring the appellant to submit explanatory materials as to this point.

However, if the appellant had been detained at the time when the summary order was served on the appellant's mother as alleged by the appellant, the service of the summary order is invalid, so the period of the request for formal trial does not run independently. Since the request for formal trial filed along with the request for recovery of the right to request formal trial of this case is a legitimate request within the period of time and becomes effective independently, the appellant is not required to request for recovery of the right to request formal trial of this case by proving that the appellant was not served with the summary order for the same reason as the appellant's assertion (as a record, the first instance court has not yet made a decision on the request for formal trial of this case). Thus, the appellant's request for recovery of the right to request formal trial of this case shall be dismissed, and therefore, the above error of the court below shall be considered to have no effect on its conclusion, and thus, it shall not be justified.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)