beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.09.09 2020나21512

구상금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. According to the records of this case, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on January 25, 2018, and the first instance court on February 2, 2018, the copy of the instant complaint, the statement of lawsuit guidance, and the statement of response.

The summary table was sent to Gangdong-gu Seoul E and Fho (hereinafter “the Defendant’s father”) at the Defendant’s domicile. On February 6, 2018, the Defendant’s father G received a duplicate of the instant complaint, etc. at the Defendant’s domicile; ② the first instance court served a notice of the sentencing date on March 8, 2018 as the Defendant did not submit a written response one month after the date of delivery of the duplicate of the complaint; and the above G received it as the Defendant’s cohabitant at the Defendant’s domicile on March 13, 2018; ③ the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on April 25, 2018, and served the original copy of the judgment on April 26, 2018; and ④ the Defendant’s third village as the Defendant’s cohabitant at the Defendant’s domicile on May 1, 2018, and the fact that the Defendant submitted the instant appeal and the period for appeal on May 26, 2018.

B. Determination 1) The service is based on the domicile, residence, or business office of the person to be served (Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In principle, delivery to the person to be served is to be served; however, if the service agency fails to summon the person to be served at the aforementioned place, the service agency may serve the document as a clerk, employee, or cohabitant (Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). If a supplementary service is made, the service becomes effective upon the receipt of the litigation document by office staff, employee, or cohabitant, and there is no relationship between the final receipt of the document and the validity of the service (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do888, Aug. 8, 2018).