[1] The meaning of "office staff" that can be an agent for receipt in the supplementary service under Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] The case holding that service by an attorney-at-law who uses the same office as the attorney-at-law divided as the office is lawful as a supplementary service

[1] Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Na24673 Decided May 31, 2007

The judgment below is reversed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The litigation costs after the appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the supplementary service under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a clerical staff who can be an agent for receipt is not necessarily required to have an employment relationship with a recipient for a recipient, but it is sufficient to assist a person who assists in business on his/her behalf (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da22640, Aug. 19, 2005).

As to whether the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court was lawfully served on the plaintiff's attorney at the first instance court (hereinafter "the plaintiff's attorney at the first instance court"), the court below determined that the plaintiff's attorney at the time of service and the attorney at the second instance court (name 2 omitted) jointly used the same office (the defendant's attorney at the second instance court's office (the defendant's attorney at the second instance court's office omitted) and delivered the original copy to the plaintiff's attorney at the second instance court (the plaintiff's attorney at the second instance court's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office work's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office' and other office' office' office's office's office work'.

However, while recognizing the fact that the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered to another attorney-at-law who uses the same office as the plaintiff's attorney-at-law, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the service is unlawful in light of the

In addition to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the following circumstances revealed by the records, namely, Plaintiff’s attorney and (name 2 omitted) attorneys-at-law have independent office space inside the jointly used office, but it is difficult to view that the space used by each attorney-at-law is physically completely divided. The Nonparty is a law office (name 2 omitted) at the court below’s judgment, and the right is (name 1 omitted), and most mail have been delivered to the legal office (name 2 omitted). It is only a single office to serve 800-1,000 copies a day, and it is impossible to serve the attorney-at-law with a notice on behalf of the Plaintiff-at-law’s attorney on March 3, 2006 (name 2 omitted). Accordingly, it appears that the notice was received by the Plaintiff-at-law on behalf of the attorney-at-law (name 2 omitted) as a new notice on the date of pleading’s delivery, etc. (name 2 omitted).

Furthermore, the plaintiff's subsequent supplement of the judgment of the court of first instance was submitted to the court of first instance as of October 26, 2006 after the lapse of two weeks from October 26, 2006, when the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was lawfully delivered to the plaintiff's legal representative. If the above circumstances were to be the same, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff, and there is no other assertion or proof as to the subsequent supplement of appeal.

Nevertheless, the court below decided that the service of the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance is illegal and invalid on the grounds as seen earlier, and therefore, the period of appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be proceeded, and as a result, the plaintiff's appeal of this case was not filed with the lapse of the period of appeal and the validity thereof, and revoked the judgment of the court of first instance and accepted the plaintiff's claim in full. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to delivery and subsequent appeal, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal No. 1 pointing this out

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient for the court to directly render a judgment. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for the reasons as seen earlier, and the defects are inappropriate and cannot be corrected. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. The costs of appeal after the appeal are to be borne by the plaintiff who is the losing party.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)