[2] The case holding that the delivery of the Korean Pharmaceutical Association's delivery to the Korean Pharmaceutical Association shall not be deemed a lawful delivery in case where the Korean Pharmaceutical Association's branch's ○○○ and △△△△ branch's office is an independent non-corporate group

[2] The case holding that the service of the Korean Pharmaceutical Association on an incorporated association shall not be deemed a lawful service in the case where the Korean Pharmaceutical Association's branch, ○○○, and △△△ branch, which can be viewed as an independent non-corporate group, was the office of the branch of the Seoul Pharmaceutical Association

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below issued a collection order against the non-party 1 (the retirement from office around August 2001) who was the secretary general of the Korea Pharmaceutical Association branch, ○○○○ and △△△△△ Branch (hereinafter referred to as the "○○○○○○○ Branch") on the defendant corporation. After filing a lawsuit against the defendant corporation to collect money, the court below stated the defendant corporation's address in Seoul District Court as "Seoul Seocho-gu ( Address 1 omitted)" which is the seat of the principal office on the registry of the defendant corporation. The delivery place as "Seoul ( Address 2 omitted)," which is the seat of the office of the branch office of ○○○○○○○○○○○ Branch, the first instance court received copies of the complaint of this case as the above delivery place and the summons on the first date for pleading, which is the non-party 2, who is an employee of the defendant corporation, as the 10th branch office, and received the above documents from the defendant corporation under the status of 101.

2. Service on a legal entity shall be effected on a representative corresponding to his/her legal representative, so it shall be effected at the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of his/her representative [Article 60 and Article 170 (1) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply]. The term "place of business or office" refers to a place where the whole or part of the main business activities can be completed independently without any subscription to the name attached to the facility, i.e., a place where the whole or part of the business activities can be completed independently, but it shall be sufficient if the business office or office of the legal entity is a place where the general business activities are conducted.

However, according to the records of this case, the above ○○ Branch is an affiliated organization of the defendant corporation established with the approval of the defendant corporation and under the supervision of the business of the defendant corporation (Articles 3(1), 29(2), and 33(2) of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation). Meanwhile, the defendant corporation has branch, organization, operation, and membership fee management regulations. According to the above provisions, the ○○ Branch is composed of a pharmacist who has a pharmaceutical license holder or a principal place of business (However, the unemployed person's domicile) within the ○○-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City △△△△△△△△△△ Group (Article 4 of the above regulations, Articles 3 and 6 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation), and it is sufficient for the defendant corporation to have a general meeting and the board of directors to decide on its own will, regardless of whether the ○○ Branch is a corporation and its members, and it is sufficient for the defendant corporation to independently submit its business plan, budget, and matters concerning the management and disposal of fundamental property (Article 17, Article 18 of the above regulations).

Thus, since the above ○○ branch cannot be concluded as the business office or office of the defendant corporation, it cannot be viewed as the service place for the defendant corporation.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the above ○○ Branch's office was merely a subordinate organization of the defendant corporation and it is not an independent corporate body, and that the office of the above ○○ Branch's office is the service place for the defendant corporation, and thus the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was legally served on the defendant corporation and judged it unlawful. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the service place of the corporation or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion

The ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

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

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)