16. Ability of students to receive the supplementary service in the second grade of a middle school of the age of 16.

Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "a person who has an intelligence to change his/her interest" shall be deemed sufficient if he/she has the ability to expect the recipient of the service to deliver the document to the recipient of the service in understanding the purport of service, and the non-party 1 is a student who is enrolled in the second grade in Seoul Symna Middle School at 16 years of age, and thus, he/she has the ability to receive the document.

Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (68Do3454) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 68Do3454)

This lawsuit was concluded on February 26, 1969 as the withdrawal of appeal.

Costs of lawsuit incurred after the request for designation of this date shall be borne by the Defendants.

The Defendants sought to prohibit the date of pleading against the instant lawsuit.

According to the records, both the Plaintiff and the Defendants (Defendant 1 and 2; hereinafter the same shall apply) were summoned for the sixth date of pleading on January 22, 1969 on February 5, 1969, but both parties did not appear on the said date of pleading, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants were subjected to a writ of summons for the seventh date of pleading 26 p.m. on February 11 of the same year, but all the applicants and the Defendants were not present on the said date of pleading.

However, the defendants' legal representative asserted that the defendants did not appear at the above date of pleading because the defendants did not receive the above date of pleading. Defendant 1 was detained on May 28, 1968, and was confined to the Inyang Prison via the Seoul detention center. Defendant 2 was absent from the leave, but Defendant 2 received Nonparty 1, who was a minor, and did not deliver it to the defendants on January 22, 1969. The writ of summons for the seventh date of pleading was issued by the defendants on February 11, 1969, and it was also delivered by Nonparty 2, a minor, who was the minor of the defendants, was not aware of each of the above date of pleading, and was unable to appear at the date of pleading due to any cause not attributable to the defendants. Thus, the defendants did not designate the date of pleading.

However, according to the records, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are the couple living together with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 received a summons of date and summons of date to Defendant 1 on several occasions. On September 4, 1968, 198, October 23, 1968, and November 6, 1968, they directly attended court and present oral arguments. Thus, the defendants were aware of the facts which were being examined by the party members, but they were detained, and there was no fact that Defendant 1 submitted to the court the reason that the case was detained or the address changed (in case of Nonparty 1’s statement by the party witness, it was recognized that the summons was served by Nonparty 1 while living together with the Defendants, and that it was served by Nonparty 1, his wife, and that it was not possible to deliver documents to Nonparty 1, who is his wife, to the extent that he could not receive documents after being served by the defendant at his own time. According to Article 172 of the Civil Procedure Act, the defendants’ assertion that it was impossible to deliver documents to Nonparty 1 and his wife.

If so, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants were unable to appear on each of the above dates for pleading because they failed to obtain a writ of summons on each of the above dates for pleading. Therefore, the Defendants’ application for designation of the above date for pleading is groundless.

Therefore, this lawsuit is deemed to have been withdrawn on February 26, 1969 by the provisions of Article 241 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is clear that the appeal by the Defendants has already been completed. Thus, the declaration of such purport is to be made. The litigation cost incurred after the request is assessed against the Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Justices Park Jong-su (Presiding Justice)