In applying the subsequent period of Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act to a party residing in this State, whether a reasonable period of time normally required for the arrival of mail may be excluded from two weeks, which is the expiration period.

When the parties residing in a foreign country serve documents of lawsuit by international mail, the arrival period of the mail required shall be not more than two weeks, which is the final appeal period, for the reasons for which the parties cannot be responsible.

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff-Appellant Kim Yong-jin, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Appellee, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na1400 delivered on May 9, 1974

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s Defendant’s ground of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, if the parties concerned were unable to observe the period of appeal, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to them, the court below may supplement the neglected procedural acts within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist, and if the litigation documents were to be served on the front address of the defendant, such as this case, and such address was not known, then the defendant transferred to another place before the institution of the lawsuit could not be able to observe the period of appeal without any absence of such circumstances as intending to avoid dispute, to escape or make it difficult, and, in general, to serve the judgment on the parties by public notice, the defendant could not be seen as being able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to confirm the fact that the above 2nd court's legal representative had become 1 to 7th day after the arrival of the judgment's original document, and the defendant's legal representative was 1 to 17th day after the arrival of the period of appeal at 17th day of Seoul, 197.

However, since the parties can not depend on international mail because of their residence in a foreign country, the arrival period of mail required for it is the reason why the parties cannot be held responsible for it. Even in today today where the international mail means rapidly developed, the service can be expected to be in a foreign country which requires more than 14 days than the subsequent completion period stipulated in Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act even if the documents of lawsuit are sent by the most prompt arrival in that country, and the service period for the service abroad is two weeks compared to the two weeks in Korea, there is no special provision regarding the subsequent completion period, and rather, the additional period is not recognized for the above subsequent completion period. In light of the above fact that the parties cannot abide by the peremptory period due to a cause for which the parties cannot be held responsible, it shall be interpreted as including the case where the parties in the foreign country are located, and the case where the documents of lawsuit are sent by the most rapid international mail in that area, which is the most widely available international mail in that area.

If the parties do not interpret Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act as above with regard to the completion of the procedural acts in a foreign country, as in this case, the parties residing in the foreign country immediately after the completion of the procedural acts as prescribed in Article 160 of the same Act, may follow the international mail which is the most prompt method (if the parties directly return to Korea, even if several time days may be reduced if they return to Korea, the conclusion is the same, and under the systems in which the Civil Procedure Act is predicted to submit documents by mail, only electronic means may not be forced.) our competent court may reach the delivery period of the said two weeks if the parties comply with the above two weeks period under the provision of the same Act, which would result in compelling the parties to the lawsuit to complete the above two weeks period, which would result in infringing upon the fundamental rights of the parties to the lawsuit, and as such, unreasonable results would result in infringing upon the defendant's fundamental rights at the expiration of the said two weeks period, and thus, it cannot be interpreted that the above period would have reached the maximum period of time when the court below's appeal would have reached the above conclusion that the defendant's final period of the foregoing.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)