Whether a reappeal may be deemed a lawful reappeal in case where a reappeal is filed after the first instance court rendered a complaint and the record of trial was submitted before it was sent to the appellate court, but the first instance court later forwarded it to the appellate court, and the second instance court served a notice on the appellate court, and the second instance court later filed a reappeal after being aware of it after the period of reappeal expires (affirmative)

After the first instance court's decision, the re-appellant filed an appeal and filed an application for address correction to the first instance court before the record was sent to the lower court, and the first instance court sent it late without sending it to the lower court, and served the previous address prior to address correction to the lower court's address on the ground that service was impossible as a result, the Re-Appellant received the original copy of the lower court's order on February 1, 1990 and then filed a reappeal to the lower court on July 2, 199 of the same year, after serving on February 1, 1990, the re-appellant received the original copy of the lower court's order on June 29 of the same year. Therefore, in case where the re-appellant filed a reappeal to the lower court on July 2 of the same year, the re-appellant was deemed to have known of such fact at the time of receiving

Article 160(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 1990)

Long-term refund

Seoul High Court Order 90Ra4 dated January 22, 1990

The reappeal is dismissed.

1. First, the reappeal is deemed lawful;

In light of the record, the court below served 80-1, Ansan-dong 80-1, which was indicated in the written appeal on the decision, to the re-appellant's address, but when it was impossible to serve as a director due to unknown reasons, the presiding judge of the court below ordered service by public notice on February 1, 1990 and served the same day by public notice. The re-appellant received the original copy of the court below on June 29 of the same year and submitted it to the court below on July 2 of the same year. Thus, the re-appeal of this case is deemed to have been raised over the re-appeal period.

However, according to the record, the re-appellant filed an appeal on December 14, 1989 after the first instance court decision and filed the record of trial before it was sent to the court below (re-appellant's delivery on December 29, 1989 and received on January 8, 1990). On December 21, 1989, the first instance court submitted an application for address correction to the court of first instance and submitted it to the court of first instance for the correction of address, and the first instance court sent it to the court of first instance on March 6, 1990, without sending it along with the record of trial and served the previous address before the correction to the court of first instance on March 6, 199, and as a result, the service was impossible. The re-appellant knew of the fact around the original court's receipt of the authentic copy on June 29, 199, and therefore, the re-appellant was allowed due to any cause not attributable to the re-appellant and thus, the re-appeal of this case was lawful.

2. The grounds for reappeal are examined.

Pursuant to Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, a reappeal against the decision of the appellate court may be filed only on the ground that there is a reason prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 11 (1) of the same Act which affected the decision of the appellate court, and the ground for the reappeal's appeal is not a case prescribed in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and therefore,

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)