The validity of service by publication of requirements not paid

Even if there is a defect in the failure to meet the requirements of service by public notice under Article 179 of the Civil Procedure Act, so long as a judge's order of service by public notice is served by public notice, the validity of such service

Articles 179 and 181 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 84Ma20 Dated March 15, 1984

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 84Na357 delivered on January 23, 1985

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records and the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant 1 and 2,50,000 won for the first floor of the house located at the time of the exhibition by public notice, which is the cause of claim. Since the plaintiff was not a party member of the court below's 1982 May 28, 1982, the plaintiff was living at the above house after paying the deposit money, the defendant set up the right to collateral security in the name of the Seoul Trust Bank around January 16, 1982, and the non-party 1 acquired the above real estate at the auction procedure at around September 15, 1983, and the non-party 2 purchased the above real estate from the above non-party 1 on November 28, 1983 without submitting the plaintiff's summons at the court below's 2,500,000 won for the plaintiff's allegation that the above lease agreement was terminated by public notice, and the plaintiff did not appear at the court below's address at the date of pleading.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff is attached to the complaint of this case to the effect that it proves the facts of the plaintiff's assertion. Since there is no room to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion according to the contents of the contract, the defendant did not directly enter into a lease contract with the plaintiff on the fourth date for pleading in the court below. The defendant asserted that the non-party 3, who is the field supervisor of the housing construction business place located in the Taesungdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-Appellee-Appellee-si-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-do-do-do-Appellee-do-do-do-do-do-Appellee-Appellee-do-do-type.

However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff did not appear on the fourth day for pleading of the court below and did not prove the plaintiff's assertion without taking such measures as to the purport of the defendant's answer. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of law and incomplete deliberation on the exercise of right for explanation. Thus, the ground for appeal pointing this out is justified.

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

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)