[1] Whether a business office or office of another corporation, the representative of which holds concurrent office, is a legitimate place of service (negative)

[2] The time and method of assertion of invalidity where there is a defect such as absence or invalidation of a resolution by the board of directors of a corporation under the Civil Act

[1] The acts of litigation which may bring legal effects to a party to a lawsuit, shall be an act of a natural person representing the juristic person or an act of such natural person. Thus, documents such as a complaint, date of summons, judgment, etc. shall be served to the said juristic person to the said juristic person, and the documents shall be served to the representative, in principle, at the address, residence, place of business, or office of the representative of the juristic person [Article 170 (1) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002)]. Here, the term "business office or office" means the business office or office of the said juristic person. Thus, the business office or office of another juristic person having a separate legal personality, the representative of which is concurrently

[2] If there is any defect such as absence or invalidation of a resolution by the board of directors of a corporation under the Civil Act, there is no separate provision in the law, and the interested party may at any time assert the invalidation by any other method.

[1] Articles 60 (see current Article 64), 165 (see current Article 178), and 170 (see current Article 183) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002) / [2] Articles 58 (2) and 137 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 76Da170 delivered on April 27, 1976 (Gong1976, 9132), Supreme Court Decision 91Da21176 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 1123), Supreme Court Decision 97Ma600 delivered on May 19, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 1845), Supreme Court Decision 97Da31267 delivered on December 9, 197 (Gong198, 225) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da26187 delivered on January 28, 200 (Gong200, 554) 9Da30609 delivered on February 111, 200 (Gong1997Ha, 200, 5554)

Haakwon

Happiness et al. (Law Firm Seobu General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Display-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The representative director who is the taking-over of the lawsuit by the defendant foundation and the chief executive officer Kim Jong-tae

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na19966 delivered on October 6, 2000

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

On April 21, 1994, the court below rejected the plaintiff's appeal that the plaintiff purchased each real estate listed in the separate list owned by the defendant corporation from the Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court as the cause of the claim against the defendant on April 21, 1994, and the decision was passed on June 8, 1994 by the plaintiff. The original copy of the judgment was served as the Preferred Development Office for the defendant corporation, which was working for the defendant corporation at the time of the judgment, and it was received by the clerk of the Preferred Development Office for the defendant corporation on June 22, 1994. Even if the Preferred Development Office for the defendant corporation was the representative of Preferred Development Office for the defendant corporation with separate legal personality, the office of Preferred Development Office for the defendant corporation cannot be deemed as the delivery place for the defendant corporation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant was invalid by the court of first instance as the defendant's 1's representative's filing of the appeal against the plaintiff.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the legitimacy of service of the original copy of the judgment

Procedural acts that may take effect to a party to a lawsuit, shall be an act of a natural person representing the juristic person or an act of such natural person. Thus, documents such as a complaint, date of summons and judgment of the said juristic person shall be served to the representative (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da170, Apr. 27, 1976). The service is in principle made at the address, domicile, place of business or office of the representative of the juristic person (Article 170 (1) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002). The term "place of business or office" refers to the place of business or office of the said juristic person. Thus, the business office or office of another juristic person having a separate legal personality, the representative of which is holding concurrent office, is merely the place of business of the said representative (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da2176, Feb. 25, 192; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3767, Dec. 16, 197, 197).

From the same point of view, the court below determined that the service of the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance by the court of first instance is unlawful, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the original copy of the judgment was delivered to Go Man-hee by the National Institute of Prior Development Co., Ltd. on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below's above fact-finding and decision are just, and there is no error of law, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the service of

B. As to the legitimacy of the appeal

In the event of defects such as non-existence or invalidation of a resolution by the board of directors of a corporation under the Civil Act, interested parties may assert invalidation at any time or by whatever method (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da26187, Jan. 28, 200; Supreme Court Decision 9Da30039, Feb. 11, 200, etc.: Provided, That under the method of nullification of a lawsuit seeking invalidation by the board of directors was filed, and there is no final judgment in favor of the above parties, it cannot be deemed that the effect of the judgment arises only between the above parties. According to the records, the defendant is a public interest corporation established to conduct a scholarship project for promoting science and technology education and to conduct a profit-making business, and the term of office of the non-party corporation was appointed as the director and the chief director of the non-party corporation on August 29, 196; the term of office of the non-party corporation is 4 years from the date of the above establishment of the board of directors and the Seoul District Court’s temporary cancellation of ownership.

Therefore, if there is such a defect as seen above in the resolution by the board of directors that appointed Nonparty 1 as representative, the act of Nonparty 1’s appointing a legal representative to file the instant appeal on behalf of the defendant corporation and the act of Nonparty 1’s legal representative who initiated the appeal by filing the appeal is an act done without legitimate authorization. As such, the court below should have deliberated more on the validity of the resolution by the board of directors of the defendant corporation that appointed Nonparty 1 as representative of the defendant corporation, and should have deliberated on whether the present legal representative of the defendant corporation wishes to file the instant appeal by the previous legal representative and to confirm the litigation in the course of the existing litigation (the original trial represents Nonparty 1 as an appeal by the legal representative appointed by Nonparty 1, but as seen above, the delivery of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant corporation could not be legally proceeded, and therefore there is no problem of subsequent completion of the litigation act, as it is inappropriate to serve the original copy of the judgment of the defendant corporation.)

In other opinions, the court below determined that the appeal of this case by Defendant Corporation was lawful is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal relations in the case of defects in the validity of the resolution by the board of directors concerning the appointment of the representative of a corporation under the Civil Act, and therefore, the court below cannot avoid reversal without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)