청구이의
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the records on the legitimacy of an appeal filed by the Defendant, the judgment of the first instance court of this case was rendered on September 21, 2016, and the original copy of the judgment was delivered to the Defendant at the time of October 28, 2016 by means of service by public notice when it was impossible to serve the Defendant’s previous address due to the Defendant’s absence of documents or unknown directors. The Defendant knew that the judgment of the first instance court of this case was rendered around November 21, 2016, and submitted an appeal for subsequent completion to the Seoul Detention House on December 5, 2016, while the Defendant submitted an appeal for subsequent completion to the court on December 2, 2016, the Civil Procedure Act does not stipulate any special provision on the submission of a written appeal to the Defendant, contrary to the Criminal Procedure Act, so it shall not be deemed that the Defendant submitted the written appeal to the head of the prison, etc. even if the Defendant submitted
(see Supreme Court Order 2015Ma213, Aug. 17, 2015). It is recognized that the appellate brief was submitted to the court of first instance.
However, service to a person arrested, detained, or detained in a prison, detention house, or detention room of a national police station shall be effected by the chief of a prison, detention house, or national police station.
(Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act). Service on a prisoner shall be null and void if it was done to the previous address, etc. before the inmate is confined without the head of the correctional institution, etc., and no service shall take effect even if the court knew of the receipt of the person concerned or the person concerned in the case and made the previous address, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Meu349, Dec. 28, 1982). This also applies in cases where service by public notice is impossible due to the former address, etc.
According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, the defendant is detained in a criminal case around June 23, 2016 and has been detained in the Seoul detention center until now.
Thus, the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court of this case was not served to the head of the Seoul detention center, but served to the defendant's previous address.