Plaintiff

Defendant

November 27, 2019

1. The instant lawsuit was concluded upon November 1, 2016 by this Court’s decision to recommend reconciliation on October 12, 2016.

2. The defendant's objection to the subsequent completion of August 26, 2019 is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit after the completion of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are significant or obvious to this court in terms of records:

A. The instant court rendered a decision on October 12, 2016 to recommend reconciliation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant decision”).

B. The original copy of the instant decision was served as the domicile of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Daegu North-gu ( domicile omitted) (hereinafter “instant service place”). On October 17, 2016, the Nonparty, who is an adult child and cohabitant of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, was simultaneously served with the original copy of the instant decision as to the Plaintiff and the Defendant on October 17, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not submit a written objection within two weeks from the date on which the original copy of the instant decision was served.

D. On August 26, 2019, the Defendant submitted to the instant court a written complaint for the instant decision to the effect that “the Nonparty is unable to believe that he/she was served with the original copy of the instant decision and to maintain a hot family” (this is apparent that it is not subject to the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, it is apparent that it is not subject to the judgment of the first instance court, and accordingly, the Defendant submitted the instant written complaint for the instant decision to the instant court in accordance with the Defendant’s assertion.”

2. The defendant's argument

The delivery of the original copy of the instant decision against the Nonparty, who is the disabled, is unlawful. In addition, at the time of serving the original copy of the instant decision, the Defendant was hospitalized in ○○○ University Hospital △△△△△△△△△△, and the fact that the instant decision was issued was rendered was not known. Accordingly

3. Determination

A. Whether service of the authentic copy of the instant decision is lawful

1) The main text of Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The person to be served shall be the domicile, residence, place of business, or office of the person to be served,” and Article 186(1) of the same Act provides, “If a person to be served is not present at the place of service other than his/her work place, documents may be delivered to him/her as his/her clerk, employee, or person living together with the mental capability to make reasonable judgment.”

2) In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of records and pleadings, service of the original copy of the instant decision on the non-party living together with the Defendant is lawful pursuant to Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act and Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

① At the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit on August 1, 2016, both the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Nonparty were living together with the same household on the resident registration at the instant service place, and the Defendant received directly a copy of the complaint at the instant service place on August 4, 2016.

② Although the Nonparty (date of birth omitted) has a functional and visual disability that is not a student, the Nonparty did not have any impediment to intellectual ability, and graduated from both the elementary, middle, and high school course and the social welfare department at ○○○ University, on August 31, 2011, and completed the social welfare and master’s degree course at the administrative graduate school at △△ University on August 31, 201. In light of the Nonparty’s age and academic background, the Nonparty is deemed to have sufficient ability to understand the purport of service and expect to deliver documents he/she received. Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that there exists any conflict of interest between the Nonparty and the Defendant with respect to the instant case.

B. Whether the Defendant’s objection to the subsequent completion is lawful

1) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” Here, “a cause not attributable to the party” refers to a cause for which the party could not comply with the period even though he/she had exercised generally required care to do the procedural acts, and as regards such cause, the party’s assertion and proof should be made on the part of the party who intends to supplement the procedural acts (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012).

2) As seen earlier, although the Defendant was aware that the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit against the Defendant by being directly served with the duplicate, etc. of the instant complaint, the Defendant filed an objection to the instant subsequent completion only after the lapse of two years and ten months after the original copy of the instant decision was served on August 26, 2019. However, it is insufficient to deem that the Defendant was hospitalized at the time of serving the original copy of the instant decision, solely on the sole ground that the Defendant was hospitalized with due care to conduct procedural acts, or that there was a reason for not complying with the period of filing the objection, and even after examining other materials submitted by the Defendant, it is insufficient to prove the foregoing reason.

C. Sub-committee

The decision of this case was delivered lawfully to the defendant and became final and conclusive with the limit of the filing period, and cannot be deemed to constitute a case where the defendant was unable to comply with the above peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him. Therefore, the defendant’s objection to the subsequent completion of this case

4. Conclusion

The instant lawsuit was concluded on November 1, 2016 after the instant decision became final and conclusive. Since the Defendant is dissatisfied with this, a declaration of termination of the lawsuit is made, and the Defendant’s objection to the subsequent completion of the lawsuit is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-American