Whether Article 186(2) of the Civil Procedure Act applies to cases where a person to be served reports his/her place of service to his/her place of service (affirmative)

Article 186(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when a person to receive service is not present at a place of service, the document may be delivered to his/her employer, his/her legal representative or employee, or his/her other employee, who is man of sense, unless he/she refuses to receive the document. This provision concerning supplementary service at the place of service is either impossible to serve the document at the address, residence, place of business or office (hereinafter referred to as "place of service, etc.") of the person to receive service, which is the original principle, or it is impossible to identify the place of service, such as the address, domicile, place of business or office (hereinafter referred to as "place of service, etc.") or to identify the place of service, etc. due to employment, delegation or other legal acts (Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act) and also applies to cases where the person to receive service reports the place of service to the

Article 186(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Yellow-hwan et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na49572 delivered on April 12, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Article 186(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when a person to be served is not present at a place of service, a document may be delivered to his employee, or his legal representative or employee, who is man of sense, unless he refuses to receive the document. This provision concerning the supplementary service at the place of service is either impossible to serve the document at the address, residence, place of business or office of the person to be served at the place of service (hereinafter referred to as "place of service, etc.") or it is impossible to identify the place of service, such as the domicile, address, etc., of the person to be served at the place of service, which is a supplementary service (Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), and also applies when the person to be served reports the place of service to his place of service as his place of service (Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act).

2. According to the records, since the defendant's attorney is recognized to have filed an appeal by entering "6 stories in Seoul ( Address omitted) building, which is the location of the defendant's office in the petition of appeal, into the service place of the defendant, the above service place shall be deemed to have been reported to the defendant. On the other hand, on June 3, 2005, the notice of receipt of the petition of appeal of this case was asserted to "1, non-party 1 (the defendant is a non-party 2) who is the employee of the reason network corporation in Gangnam-gu ( Address omitted)," but it seems to have mistakenly read "1, non-party 1". Thus, the notice of receipt of the petition of this case was delivered to the defendant's office reported to the defendant's attorney on June 3, 2005 as the service place of the defendant's office, and the defendant's appeal of this case was not lawfully delivered to the defendant's employee or his employee in accordance with the Civil Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal of this case was not lawfully submitted to the second appellate brief of this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)