beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.01.12 2016누68221

난민불인정결정취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant appeal.

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party is not liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though he/she had been generally required to perform the procedural acts. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a usual way during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a normal way, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is attributable to any reason for which the period cannot be held liable.

(1) According to the records, the chief clerk of the first instance court served a certified copy of the correction order, notification of the date of pleading, and a duplicate of the response submitted by the Defendant at the address indicated in the complaint. The certified copy of the correction order and a duplicate of the response submitted by the Defendant were received respectively by the Plaintiff, but the notification of the date of pleading was not served by the addressee’s unknown address. The first instance court served a notice of the date of pleading to the Plaintiff by registered mail. The Plaintiff was present at the first instance court’s date of pleading, and the pleading was terminated, and the second instance court served the certified copy of the judgment to the Plaintiff at the above address but was not served by service on September 8, 2016, because the original copy was not served by the addressee’s unknown and unknown address. The chief clerk of the second instance court presented the original copy to the lower court on October 7, 2016.

The plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the court, shall have jurisdiction over the change of address.