beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Whether the appeal is lawful;
A. Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the period of appeal against the judgment shall not run unless the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered lawfully. Thus, the judgment shall not be deemed to have become formally final and conclusive, and therefore, the problem of subsequent completion of litigation cannot be raised (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da10345, May 30, 197). Meanwhile, Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Service shall be made within the domicile, temporary domicile, temporary domicile, or office of the person to be served.” Article 183(2) of the same Act provides that “When the person to be served is unable to know the place under paragraph (1) or is unable to serve it at such place, service may be made at the domicile, etc. of another person employed by employment, delegation or
3) In addition, Article 186(1) of the same Act provides that "where a person to be served at a place other than his/her work place is not present, documents may be delivered to his/her office worker, employee, or cohabitant who is man of sense as a member of the work place, and Article 186(2) of the same Act provides that "if a person to be served at a work place is not present, documents may be delivered to another person under Article 183(2) or his/her legal representative or employee, who is man of sense as a member of the work place, unless he/she refuses the receipt of documents, may be delivered to him/her." (B) Under the above provision, facts are significant in this court or show the overall purport of oral arguments in each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5. (A) The plaintiff may be recognized as the defendant's address on December 14, 200 "Bolsan EF-gu," and the place where service is to be made at the Dong building (hereinafter referred to as "G building of this case").
The suit of this case was filed with the entry of this case, and the duplicate of the complaint of this case was the qualification of H as the defendant's spouse who is living together at the service place of this case on the 24th of the same month.