[2] Where a certified copy of the presiding judge's order of correction was sent by registered mail, but the service report accompanied by a certificate of special mail issued by a post office was not prepared, and the service report is not recorded in the list of "the present status of service following computerization of the notice of service (2006-2)" under Article 2 (3) of the "Guidelines for Computerization of the Notice of Service (2006-2)", the above service cannot be

[2] Where a certified copy of the presiding judge's order of correction was sent by registered mail, but the service report accompanied by a certificate of special mail by a post office was not prepared, and the service report is not recorded in the list of "the present status of service following computerization of the notice of service (2006-2)" under Article 2 (3) of the "Guidelines for Computerization of the Notice of Service (2006-2)", the above service cannot be held invalid

The court below affirmed the first instance court's order which dismissed the appeal on October 27, 200, including the re-appellant's notice of correction on October 27, 2008 and the delivery fees of KRW 12,080 (hereinafter "the correction order of this case") in the first instance court of the appeal for the succession approval of this case. The court below affirmed the first instance court's decision which dismissed the appeal for the succession approval of this case on the ground of the non-performance of the order of this case's correction, even if the appeal was filed against the first instance court's rejection and the delivery fees were corrected, and the first instance court's decision which rejected the appeal for the succession approval of this case on the ground of the non-performance of the order of this case.

However, it is difficult to accept the above measures of the court below.

According to the records, the Re-Appellant did not attach stamps and service fees when the Re-Appellant filed a request for the re-Appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's non-appellant's non-compliance's non-compliance.

Furthermore, the first instance court’s examination as to whether the delivery by registered mail is legitimate is made on November 14, 2008. Since the delivery by registered mail is conducted at the same time by a junior administrative officer, who is an institution in charge of delivery, etc., the delivery by one’s own report shall be prepared, and the place, date, etc. of the delivery shall be specified in the prescribed form, and the document shall be attached to the special mail receipt of a post office, the number of which shall be specified. Such delivery shall be important as of the date and time of delivery due to the relationship that takes effect at the time of delivery, and the date and time of delivery shall be proved by the special mail receipt of a post office with a fixed date. Thus, the delivery by a report without a special mail receipt shall not be deemed unlawful and shall not take effect (see Supreme Court Order 9Ma763, Jan. 31, 200; Supreme Court Order 200Mo763, Feb. 3, 2007>

However, there is no evidence suggesting that the service report accompanied by a post office’s special mail receipt was prepared with respect to the service of the above documents sent on November 14, 2008 on the records of this case. In addition, in relation to the pertinent list of the service status, there is no electronic information in relation to the copy of the instant order of correction that the post office notified the court of the receipt and date of the special mail, using electronic communication media, and the registered matters of Grade IV, such as the above. In full view of these circumstances and the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the service of the certified copy of the instant order of correction as of November 14, 2008 cannot be effective due to its illegality.

Therefore, the court below maintained the decision of dismissal of the first instance court on the ground of the non-performance of the order of this case, on the premise that the order of this case was delivered to the re-appellant on October 27, 2008 and the service of this case as of November 14, 2008 was null and void, as seen earlier, the court below maintained the decision of dismissal of the first instance court on the ground of the non-performance of the order of this case on the premise that the order of this case was legally served. Such a measure of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and the

Therefore, the order 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)