[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap requested consolation money on the ground that the mail delivery certificate sent by Eul merely stating the addressee as "B bank" was signed by visiting the address indicated on the surface of the envelope to the receiver and obtaining confirmation of receipt from the receiver after receiving the notice from the receiver, and Gap filed a claim for consolation money on the special mail delivery certificate on the ground that the mail delivery certificate suffered mental distress due to the gross negligence delivered to the receiver by a corporation not entitled to have a spouse against Byung for the cause of the mail delivery, it is difficult to view Byung as violating the Acts and subordinate statutes related to the Postal Service Act while delivering the above registered mail by gross negligence, on the ground that Byung's response to the purport that "I are going to go to the bank of Eul," the receiver was "I are going to go to the bank of Eul" at the time of delivery

[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap simply stated the payee in Eul bank as "B bank" while delivering the notice of acceptance decision, including the notice of acceptance to Eul bank, and the mail carrier Byung visited the address indicated on the surface of the envelope and received signature from the receiver by entering the receiver's name and relation with the receiver's name in the special mail delivery certificate after obtaining confirmation of receipt from the receiver, and Gap filed a claim for consolation money on the ground that Gap's gross negligence delivery of the above notice stated as the recipient's cause of postal delivery to Eul bank was caused by Eul's losses and delay damages caused by Eul's gross negligence, the case holding that in the registered mail bag merely stated as the recipient's name as "B bank" and the representative director's name was not known at the time of actual delivery, it is difficult to view that Byung violated the duty to confirm the relationship between the recipient and the registered mail delivery to the husband's legal person, and it is difficult to view that Byung's gross negligence was in violation of the law related to the delivery of mail to Byung.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 45,805,836 won with 5% interest per annum from November 9, 2009 to the delivery date of a complaint, and 20% interest per annum from the next day until the full payment is made.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On September 2, 198, in order to secure the claim for loans to Nonparty 1, a non-party 1, a non-party 1’s non-party 2/13 share (hereinafter “instant land”) among the non-party 1’s share (hereinafter “the maximum debt amount”) was set at KRW 300 million. As of February 16, 2009, the non-party 1 had a claim for the loan principal amount of KRW 134,603,507 and delay damages claim against the non-party 1.

B. Meanwhile, around March 19, 2007, the instant land was incorporated into the development district of Gwangju-Seoul Joint Innovation City by the Plaintiff as the project implementer, and accordingly, the Plaintiff did not complete the consultation with Nonparty 1 on the compensation of the instant land, even though the consultation was conducted with Nonparty 1.

C. On August 28, 2008, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate the instant land in KRW 71,571,620 as compensation on October 21, 2008. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who is the project implementer, should notify the non-party related to the right to collateral security as a person related to the right to collateral security in accordance with the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

D. However, in the course of entering the address of an unregistered mutual savings bank on a computer, the Plaintiff prepared a notice of acceptance decision (hereinafter “instant notice”) on September 12, 2008, including notification of acceptance decision, which is the address on the real estate register of Nonparty 1 (hereinafter omitted), and sent it to the registration-handling mail (hereinafter “registration-handling mail of this case”) by entering the address of the non-party 1 by mistake in the name of the representative director without stating the name of the representative director as “non-registered mutual savings bank,” and entering the address as “non-party 1’s real estate register.”

E. After September 17, 2008, at around 15:21, 2008, Nonparty 2, who belongs to the defendant, visited Nonparty 1’s wife Nonparty 3, who was residing in the envelope, at the time of delivering the registered mail of this case to the non-party 1, after having visited Nonparty 3 of the non-party 1’s wife of the non-party 3, who was living in the envelope, at the time of delivering the registered mail of this case to the non-party 1, and received a written confirmation of receipt from the non-party 3, and entered the relation between the receiver and the addressee as “spouse,” and deliver the notice of this case to the non-party 3. The other registered mail sent by the plaintiff to the non-party 1 along with the registered mail of this case, after having confirmed the receipt from the non-party 3, and entered the relation between the receiver and the addressee as “spouse.”

F. Meanwhile, even though the right to collateral security was cancelled on October 23, 2008 due to expropriation, a non-registered mutual savings bank suffered loss because it was unable to exercise the subrogation right on the expropriation compensation as a mortgagee, which was not notified of the above reasons. Accordingly, this court filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for damages claim against the plaintiff under the court No. 2009Gadan12974, which was sentenced by the court that the plaintiff would pay 57,257,296 won to the non-registered mutual savings bank and delayed payment damages. Thereafter, the plaintiff deposited KRW 59,524,057, which is the principal and interest of November 9, 2009, for non-registered mutual savings bank in accordance with the purport of the above judgment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, testimony and purport of the whole pleadings by non-party 2 of the first instance trial witness

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The reason why Nonparty 2, who is a mail office, delivered the instant notice to the registered mail office, did not comply with the procedure for identification of the addressee under the Postal Service Act, and thus his spouse is unable to be his spouse because the corporation delivered the instant notice to Nonparty 3 by gross negligence, which caused considerable mental suffering due to the Plaintiff’s gross negligence to pay the damages and delay damages to the unregistered mutual savings bank, resulting in the decline in the Plaintiff’s external status, etc., and thus, the Defendant is obligated

B. Determination

1) In a case where a registered mail has been damaged or not reached due to the intention or gross negligence of a person engaged in postal service, in violation of the ordinary duty of care required under the postal law, the sender, etc. may claim compensation for mental distress as ordinary damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81325, Jul. 23, 2009).

2) First of all, there is no evidence proving that Nonparty 2, who is a mail office, was aware that the registered mail in this case was an unclaimed mutual savings bank’s compensation-related document, and did not deliver it intentionally.

3) Next, we examine whether Nonparty 2 violated the ordinary duty of care required under the Postal Act by gross negligence in the course of delivering the instant notice by registered mail to Nonparty 2.

A) The Postal Service Act and its subordinate statute relating to the delivery of registered mail are as follows:

Postal Service Act

Article 14 (Provision of Basic Postal Services)

(1) The Minister of Knowledge Economy shall complete a systematic organization for the effective delivery of postal services across the country and shall supply postal services through which all citizens can send and receive the following postal items fairly and at a reasonable price (hereinafter referred to as "basic postal services"):

1. Ordinary mail;

2. Parcel post; and

Article 15 (Provision of Additional Postal Services)

(1) The Minister of Knowledge Economy may supply postal services falling under any of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "Additional postal services") by adding to or incidental to basic postal services referred to in Article 14 (1):

1. Special handling services, such as handling the records of basic postal services;

(2) Types and conditions of use of extra postal services under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy.

Article 31 (Delivery of Postal Items)

A postal item shall be delivered to the place indicated on the surface of the postal item.

Enforcement Decree of the Postal Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22367 of September 1, 2010)

Article 42 (Delivery of Postal Items)

(1) A postal item shall be delivered by a delivering post office to a place indicated on the surface of the postal item in accordance with the main sentence of Article 31 of the Act. In such cases, a postal item, the addressees of which is at least two persons, shall be delivered to one of them.

(2) The entry is omitted)

(3) A postal item, the handling process of which is recorded, shall be delivered after obtaining confirmation of the receipt from an addressee, a person living together (including a person working at the same workplace) or a recipient under subparagraphs 1 and 5 of Article 43.

Enforcement Regulations of the Postal Service Act

Article 25 (Types, etc. of Additional Postal Services)

(1) Types of extra postal services under Article 15 (2) of the Act shall be classified as follows:

1. Handling of registration;

A special handling system for postal items, the process of which is clearly recorded in the records.

Article 28 (Verification, etc. of Receipt at Time of Delivery of Registered Postal Items)

The confirmation of receipt at the time of delivery of a registered postal item pursuant to the provisions of Article 42 (3) of the Decree shall be made on a special postal delivery certificate signed or sealed by a recipient: Provided, That where the recipient is not the principal, the name and relationship with the recipient shall be stated, and a signature (including a digital signature) or seal shall be affixed thereon.

B) In full view of the aforementioned laws and regulations, the duty of reasonable care is to the mailman who delivers the registered mail, and ① visits the place indicated on the surface of the mail to the addressee or a person living together with him/her; ② deliver the mail to the addressee or the person living together with him/her; ③ obtain the addressee’s signature or seal on the special mail delivery certificate; and ③ in cases where the recipient is not the addressee himself/herself, the recipient requires the recipient to write down his/her name and relation with the recipient’s name and

C) Therefore, the issue of whether there is gross negligence on the part of Nonparty 2 is difficult to determine whether Nonparty 2 violated this duty even though he could have been able to perform such duty, and as seen earlier, the place where Nonparty 2 visited to deliver the instant notice was the address indicated on the surface of the registered mail bags; ② the envelope was merely indicated on the addressee’s name as the addressee; ③ the name of Nonparty 2’s representative director or manager was not indicated on the personal name such as the representative director or manager’s name was not known; ③ the mail pertaining to the business of ordinary transaction or the court’s delivery was primarily indicated on the “office’s address”; ③ the office’s personal address on which the office was closed or transferred was difficult to identify the relationship between the Plaintiff and the non-party 2’s personal address on which the instant notice was sent to the non-party 3, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the relationship between the Plaintiff’s non-party 2 and the registry’s personal address on which the instant notice was sent to the non-party 3, including the husband’s non-party 2.

4) Therefore, without any need to examine the amount of consolation money of this case, the plaintiff's claim of this case premised on the non-party 2's intentional or gross negligence, which is the cause of the mail delivery, is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Chang-chul(Presiding Judge)