2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts can be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleading to the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8-1 and 2 of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8-2.

A. On December 7, 1998, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,00 to the non-party 1 corporation. As to a promissory note of KRW 100,000,000 delivered from the non-party 1 corporation, a notary public prepared a notarial deed under the No. 4173 of the 1998 Certification as a Seongdong General Law Firm 1998, and around that time, the said promissory note was presented for payment to the non-party 1 corporation, but was not paid.

B. On October 15, 1998, Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. concluded a sales agency contract with Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd. and Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd. for the remaining five floors from the second floor to the third floor above the ground level of the Yandong-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted) and the second floor above four lots of land, and granted KRW 200,000 to Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd. as a performance bond for the sales agency contract, and held the above contract performance deposit refund claim against Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd.

C. On December 17, 1998, the Plaintiff received an order for the attachment and assignment of claims against KRW 100,000,000 out of KRW 200,000,000, which was to receive from Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. based on the above promissory note No. 98ta-2047 and 20448 on December 17, 1998. The original copy of the decision on the attachment and assignment order was served on Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd., the debtor on January 6, 199, and was served on Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd. as the head office of Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd. on the register of the registry of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted).

D. The non-party 2 Co., Ltd. leased approximately 150 meters away from the Magdae Building to May 30, 1999, which was newly constructed from April 2, 1997 to May 30, 199 due to the said new construction project, and used approximately 150 meters away from the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Magdae (number 2 omitted) building for the office.

E. Meanwhile, from April 197, 1997, △ Construction Co., Ltd., which had been performing the construction of the new construction of the above new construction site by Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd., on August 25, 1998, concluded a security service contract with ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○”) on the construction site. ○○ Co., Ltd., installed container stuff at the entrance of the construction site and used it as security office. Nonparty 3, which was the ground of collection service belonging to the Seoul Mapo-gu post office, sent the original copy of the instant decision to Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd., the third debtor, the third debtor, on December 21, 1998, displayed the original copy of the instant decision to Nonparty 4, who was in charge of the head of the above new construction site as ○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., and signed it by Nonparty 4 to Nonparty 1, the title of Nonparty 1, the title of this case, 198.

F. Based on the above assignment order, on May 17, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the full payment against Non-Party 2 Co., Ltd., the non-party 2, the garnishee of the Seoul District Court Branch 2003da20278. The Plaintiff appealed on September 23, 2004, but the Plaintiff was dismissed on September 23, 2004 by the Seoul High Court on the ground that the original copy of the instant decision was not in any other employment relationship, but is merely an employee of the non-party 2, the third debtor, the non-party 4, who was represented by the original copy of the instant decision. However, the Plaintiff appealed on September 23, 2004, but the Plaintiff was dismissed on May 13, 2005.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff should have confirmed the qualification of the non-party 4, who is an employee of the non-party 2, who is in charge of the head of the above new construction site, as an employee of the non-party 4, who is in charge of the head of the above new construction site, in delivering the original copy of the decision in this case to the non-party 2, the third party 4, who is an employee of the non-party 2, who is in charge of the above new construction site. However, without such confirmation, the non-party 2, who is the third party debtor, is not in an employment relationship, but is merely an employee of the non-party 2, who is merely an employee of the non-party 4, who is in charge of the security service business from the non-party 2, who is the contractor of the above new construction of the Magu Metropolitan Building. The plaintiff asserted that the non-party 4, who is not authorized to receive the original copy of the decision in this case, obtained the seal from the non-party 4, and then made a lawful supplementary service by indicating the name of the non-party 4.

On the other hand, the defendant started to deliver a postal item delivered to the above address as the new construction was conducted on the ground, which is the location of the office of the non-party 2 corporation, to the above ○ enterprise's security office. The defendant confirmed and delivered the mail to the non-party 4 when the mail was first delivered to the above ○ enterprise's security office. After that, although the mail was continuously delivered to the non-party 2 corporation delivered to the above Seoul Mapo-gu (number 1 omitted), it did not raise any objection against the non-party 2 corporation even though the mail was delivered to the above security office, it cannot be said that the non-party 3 was at any negligence. The compensation for the delivery of the mail is recognized only in consideration of the special nature of the postal service, and as in this case, the defendant cannot accept the plaintiff's claim since there is no provision for damages under the Postal Service Act.

B. Limited interpretation of the relevant provisions of the former Postal Service Act

Article 14 of the former Postal Service Act (amended by Act No. 6196 of Jan. 21, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that postal service shall be divided into basic postal service (Article 15) which provides the State with mandatory postal service and value-added postal service added or added to basic postal service (Article 15). Article 38 (Scope of Compensation for Damages) provides that a postal item sent by the Government shall be exempted from liability for damages under Article 38 (3) of the former Postal Service Act. Article 38 (Scope of Compensation for Damages) provides that a postal item sent is lost or damaged; 2. Where a postal item in value-added postal service is lost or damaged; 3. Where a postal item in value-added postal service is delivered to the addressee without receiving the amount of money to be collected; 4. 1 through 3. Where it is prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the amount of compensation shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Information and Communication; and Article 42 (3) of the Postal Service Act provides that the addressee shall claim for compensation for damages under Article 383.

Meanwhile, the service of the original copy of the instant decision by the mailman is an extra postal service falling under Article 15(1)1 of the former Postal Service Act and Article 25(1)6 of the former Postal Service Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Information and Communication No. 89 of April 4, 2000; hereinafter the same shall apply).

In order to achieve the purpose of the enactment of the former Postal Service Act (Article 1), which intends to contribute to the promotion of public welfare by providing fair and adequate postal service, a large number of postal items should be delivered equally at a low price regardless of the distance of delivery or the difference between the area of the means of transport, even under the condition that the limited number of persons and expenses are restricted. If the State should compensate for all kinds of accidents that may arise in the course of handling postal items in accordance with the principles provided by the Civil Act or the State Compensation Act, the State will not only bear economic burden but also take many efforts and expenses to determine whether there is a default or tort, or to compensate for the damages caused by a large number of accidents and damages caused by a large number of people who demand compensation for damages. Accordingly, the purpose of the enactment of the former Postal Service Act is to make it impossible to achieve the ultimate purpose of the enactment of the former Postal Service Act.

This point is not only basic postal services, but also value-added postal services, and such value-added postal services are also the same, so that most of the accidents, such as the loss of mail and the delay of delivery, are prevented as long as the execution of duties is performed in accordance with the ordinary rules of duty, but it is inevitable to cause damages due to illegal acts by the staff in charge of the postal services. Therefore, it is inevitable to exempt or restrict the State from liability for damages in case of damage caused by illegal acts by the loss of the staff in charge of the postal services among value-added postal services. However, as long as the damage caused by intentional or gross negligence of the mail service personnel is done in accordance with the ordinary rules of duty, it is extremely exceptional to the extent that the execution of duties is carried out in accordance with the ordinary rules of duty, it is difficult to view that the State can only exempt or limit the State's liability for damages, and there is no reasonable circumstance to deem such

Therefore, the compensation provision under the former Postal Service Act that limits or relieves the State's liability as seen above shall apply only to cases where the damage is caused by the tort by the expiration of the personnel engaged in the postal service who handle the mail falling under the value-added postal service, and in cases where the damage is caused by the intentional or gross negligence of the personnel engaged in the postal service, it is reasonable to interpret that the compensation provision under the former Postal Service Act is not applicable, but the compensation provision under the Civil Act or the

C. Whether the defendant is liable for damages in the instant case

According to the Supreme Court Decision No. 712 (Education for Editors), since it is necessary to examine whether a person can become an agent, it is necessary to determine whether to serve the original document after actively inquiring of his relationship, etc... Thus, according to the above facts, when delivering the original document of this case to the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 3, who is an employee of the non-party 3 debtor, was in charge of the head of the above new construction site as an employee of the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 4, who is in charge of the head of the guard of the above new construction site, should have confirmed the qualifications of the non-party 2 corporation, who is the third debtor, the office clerk of the non-party 2 corporation, not an employment delivery, and the non-party 4, who is merely an employee of the non-party 2 corporation, who is the contractor of the new construction of the above YGGGG, who is merely an employee of the non-party 4, who is not authorized to receive the original document of this case.

(1) The defendant's assertion that the mail office clerk continued to deliver the mail to the non-party 2 corporation to the above guard office after the new construction was conducted on the ground of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted) and confirmed that the non-party 4 had the authority to receive the mail. Even if the mail office clerk continued to deliver the mail to the guard office of the non-party 2 corporation, which is the location of the office of the non-party 2 corporation, it is difficult to view that the non-party 2 corporation delegated the right to receive the mail explicitly to the non-party 4, and on the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the non-party 2 corporation delegated the right to receive the mail to the non-party 4 to the non-party 4.

However, the above negligence is not a ground for damages under Article 38 of the former Postal Service Act, and the plaintiff cannot file a claim for damages under the Postal Service Act, and considering the whole purport of the argument in addition to the statement No. 8-2, it is recognized that the mail carrier delivered the ordinary mail of the non-party 2 corporation sent to the above non-party 4 of the ○○ company's security office prior to the delivery of the original copy of the decision in this case to the non-party 8-2, the mail carrier was delivered to the above non-party 4. In light of the fact that the non-party 4 received the general mail against the non-party 2 corporation, the non-party 3 is easily believed to have the right to receive the original copy of the decision in this case, it is difficult to view the non-party 3's negligence as a gross negligence. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be held liable for tort under the State Compensation Act or the Civil Act against the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-hee