logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.11.23 2018나1848
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above revocation part.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The relevant legal principles shall, in principle, be served at the address, residence, place of business, or office of the person to be served (hereinafter referred to as “place of business, etc.”) (Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The term “place of business or office” refers to the place of business or office of the person to be served, which is managed by the person to be served, and the place of work of the person to be served does not fall under such provision (see Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). Meanwhile, according to Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating the service at the place of work, the service at the place of work may be made only when the person to be served is unaware of the address, etc. of the person to be served or when the service at the place is impossible

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2004Ma535, Jul. 21, 2004). (B)

Judgment

1) The following facts are apparent in the record. A) On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the court and entered the Defendant’s domicile in Busan Shipping Daegu Q in its complaint as “B,” and the Defendant’s domicile in the first instance trial codefendant B (hereinafter “B”) and the Defendants’ workplace address is indicated separately as the service place of the Defendants.

B) The court of first instance sent a copy of the complaint to the Defendants to the workplace of this case, and S, which is the general affairs of B, received the copies of the complaint. The Defendants did not submit a written response. The court of first instance thereafter sent the Defendants a written notice of the date of pleading, a copy of the Plaintiff’s briefs, and a notice of the sentencing date to the workplace of this case, but all were not sent to the Defendants due to the addressee’s unknown address, and each service was sent and sent respectively.

arrow