[1] The meaning of "a case where the place to be served is not known, which is the requirement for the delivery of documents under Article 185 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act"

[2] The case holding that the court's measure of delivering documents by registered mail is unlawful where the delivery of documents by registered mail was impossible after the judgment was served to the re-appellant's domicile, despite the fact that the documents were actually served several times of business other than the re-appellant's domicile was clearly shown in the records

[1] Article 185(2) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 185(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da23464 delivered on September 26, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3243) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da31592 delivered on August 24, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2071) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da11988 delivered on October 15, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1825)

Round

Daejeon District Court Order 2004Na11917 dated June 13, 2005

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

1. Facts of recognition;

In light of the record, the following facts may be recognized.

A. The plaintiff-appellant, the first instance court, the Daejeon District Court 2004Gaso68596 case, entered his address in his complaint as Dong-dong, Daejeon (hereinafter "the address of this case"), and the first instance court and the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2004Na 11917), sent all documents served on the re-appellant to the address of this case. However, among them, the court's certified copy of the first instance court's decision of resumption of pleading, the court's certified copy of the appellate court's correction order and the date of preparation were received from the address of this case. The plaintiff-appellant's first date of pleading, the second date of pleading, the defendant's second date of pleading, the defendant's certified copy of the defendant's recommendation of compromise, the defendant's defendant's written objection on October 25, 2004, and each of the court's new appellate court's Order No. 204 were omitted, and the court's new address and new address No. 25.14 of the appellate court's judgment were omitted.

B. On May 12, 2005, the appellate court served the original copy of the judgment to the re-appellant to the address of this case, but it became impossible to serve the original copy due to the impossibility of being served due to the unknown director, and sent it by registered mail to the address of this case on the 16th day

C. On June 7, 2005, the Re-Appellant, who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the appellate court, submitted the petition of appeal to the court below on June 7, 2005, and stated the Daejeon Dong-dong (name omitted) (name omitted) and the place of service in addition to the address of the case in this case

2. The judgment of the court below

On May 16, 2005, the court below ordered the Re-Appellant to dismiss the petition of appeal on the ground that the Re-Appellant served the original copy of the judgment on June 7, 2005, and filed an appeal on June 7, 2005.

3. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 185(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party, legal representative or attorney has altered the place where a service is to be made, a report thereof shall be made immediately to the court." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "if the place where service is to be made to a person who has failed to make a report under paragraph (1) is unknown, the service may be made by means of registered mail at the former place where service is to be made, and Article 51 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the service of documents under Article 185(2) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be made by registered mail." Thus, "if the place where service is to be made is unknown" under Article 185(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if it is not necessary to order the other party to correct his address or investigate ex officio the resident registration record card, etc., but it is not possible to identify the place where service is to be made by registered mail, it shall be made (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da31814, Aug. 24, 2001).

As seen above, most documents for the re-appellant are clearly recorded in the records that most documents were served by the Dong-dong (name omitted) or Dong-dong (name omitted) of Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-dong, which is not the actual address of this case. Thus, even if the original of the judgment of the appellate court as to the re-appellant who served to the address of this case was unable to serve by the director due to his unknown address, the appellate court should have served the original of the judgment to the address of this case as the actual service place (name omitted omitted) or (name omitted omitted), and should have served the original of the judgment to the address of this case and sent it to the address of this case only if it was not served to the address of this case, and as a director is not known, the delivery by registered mail shall not take effect since it is unlawful.

Therefore, on the premise that the original copy of the judgment of the appellate court was legally served on the re-appellant, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to service of the original copy of the judgment in the court below's order dismissing the petition of appeal of this case after the lapse of the period of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)