In a case where a postal item is promptly returned due to the refusal to receive it, whether the declaration of intention by the postal item takes effect.

A declaration of intention made by the other party becomes effective from the time when the notice is delivered to the other party, and the time such notice is delivered to the other party, refers to the time generally accepted by social norms that the other party becomes aware of the contents of the notice, and it is not necessary until the other party has actually received the notice or has known the contents of the notice. However, in a case where the mail is returned immediately because the recipient refuses to receive the notice at the expense of the delivery process, and the mail is returned immediately after confirming the contents of the notice, it shall be deemed that the other party to the notice is not placed in an objective

Article 111 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Law No. 1414 decided Aug. 23, 1983

Samsung Electronic Company

Redhoho Lake

Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court (87Gahap2025)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by all the plaintiff of the first instance and the second instance.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 19,00,000 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a judgment of provisional execution

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The defendant, on March 28, 1984, has no dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2-1, 5-6 of Eul evidence Nos. 5-7 of Eul evidence Nos. 5-8 of Eul, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (certificate of transfer), 1-2 of the court below's witness's 1, 12-1, 2-2 of the above evidence Nos. 1, 5-7 of the above evidence Nos. 1, 10-7 of the above facts that the defendant transferred the above Nos. 1, 20-7 of the above evidence Nos. 1, 263 of the above facts to the non-party Nos. 1, 1984, 00-1, 1, 26-10, 260-1, 200-7, 90-7, 90-7, 000-1, 160-7, 105.

2. On January 23, 1986, the plaintiff asserted that the above title of this Chapter, the creditor, made a verbal notification to the defendant, who is the debtor, of the fact that he transferred his right to return the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the defendant, and that the defendant, who is the debtor, had the testimony of the court below's testimony consistent with this, is not trusted in light of each of the statements in subparagraph 5-6 through 8, correction of the witness of the court below, spaws, sound records of the party concerned, and the testimony of the stuff

In addition, the plaintiff alleged that on February 13, 1986, the above title stated that the defendant notified the transfer of the above recognition to the defendant by the content-certified mail, and the non-party 2, who is the defendant's wife, received and stored the above recognition on the 15th day of the month, and returned the above item in accordance with the defendant's order, and therefore, the above title No. 2 (written notice of transfer) was sent to the defendant on February 13, 1986 without dispute over the establishment of the public document section, although it is recognized that the above title was sent to the defendant on February 13, 1986, the above title No. 4 and No. 1 (written delivery certificate), No. 5-6 through No. 8, and No. 5-6 through No. 1 (written delivery certificate), the court below's correction witness, and the witness at the court below's concurrent hearing witness's testimony, and there is no other evidence to prove the above facts.

In addition, the plaintiff, on February 13, 1986, sent the above notice of the assignment of claims to the defendant on the 15th day of the month when the above Lee Jong-ho was delivered to the above stuff who had the right of attorney of the defendant, and the mail was returned to the above stuff on the 15th day of the said month, the above notice of the assignment of claims became effective since the above notice of the assignment of claims was legally delivered to the defendant. Thus, it is argued that the above notice of the assignment of claims became effective since the above evidence No. 2, No. 4, No. 5-6, No. 5-6, and No. 5-7, the above evidence No. 5-7 (excluding the above part not trusted in the front), the witness testimony of the court below, and the witness testimony of the court below to the above 7th day of the above cryth day of the above cryth day, and the defendant's testimony to the above cryth day of the above cryth of the defendant's address.

However, the declaration of intention of the other party shall take effect from the time when the notice is delivered to the other party. Here, the time when the other party reaches the other party's control, refers to the objective situation where the other party becomes able to know the contents of the notice in general by social norms, and it is not necessary until the debtor has actually received the notice or has been aware of the contents of the notice. Thus, even if the defendant is a person living together with the defendant as the above facts recognized as a lawful recipient, if the mail is returned immediately because the notice was refused in the course of delivery of the mail before confirming the mail, due to minor cost of delivery, if the mail is returned immediately after the delivery of the notice, it shall be deemed that the other party to the notice is not at an objective state to the extent that the other party can know the contents of the notice, and the plaintiff's assertion that the notice of assignment of claim was

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case premised on the premise that the plaintiff who received the above claim for the return of the above deposit amount from this Chapter reaches the defendant, who is the debtor, can assert the above claim for the above transfer, is groundless without any need to further examine. Since the original judgment is unfair in conclusion, the original judgment accepted the defendant's appeal which caused the plaintiff's fault, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part of the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89, 95, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Choi Han-ro (Presiding Judge)