The case holding that it cannot be inferred that the addressee actually received the mail solely on the ground that the mail was put into the post of the addressee's household.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below which presumed that apartment security guards received a postal item after receiving it from a house guard, based on the fact that apartment security guards received it, without thoroughly examining the structure of the mail box and the special circumstances to confirm that the mail was received by the addressee, in light of the reality where there is a lot of possibility that the mail would not enter the addressee's number for reasons of loss, etc., even if it was put into the mail by the recipient's household.

Article 111(1) of the Civil Act

Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Han-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Na22710 Decided September 29, 2005

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

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion as to the qualified acceptance on the ground that, based on its adopted evidence, the plaintiff sent the notice of the inheritance debt occurrence to the deceased non-party 1, who was the defendant's children on June 13, 2003, the defendant's obligation inheritance, the defendant's obligation inheritance fact, the waiver of inheritance or the guidance on qualified acceptance, etc., by content-certified mail in Seoul (tax address omitted) apartment 2 and 604, where the defendant was living, and non-party 2 of the apartment security guards working at the above (automobile name omitted) apartment 2 and 604, who received the above notice from the house owner on June 16, 2003, and then put it in the defendant's mail, unless there are any special circumstances that the defendant could not receive the above notice in his mail, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion as to the qualified acceptance.

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

Even if an apartment mail was put in, the mail is often lost, and the ordinary mail is often put in as well as the advertising leaflet, etc., and if the mail exceeds a large number of advertising leaflets, it is deemed that there is considerable possibility that the mail would not enter the addressee’s number of households even if put in the mail. In addition, in this case, it is not deemed that the defendant, a single householder, was unable to receive the above notice because the mail was 78 years old, and it is difficult to confirm whether the mail was sent to the defendant, a single householder, from time to time, by examining the fact that the mail was sent to the defendant at night, and the fact that the defendant, who was kept in the first time, was not able to receive the Kim Jong-soo’s Kim in the event of the occurrence of the inheritance obligation, was not able to receive the above notice, in full view of the fact that the defendant’s mere fact that the defendant, a separate security guard, was not able to receive the above notice, such as an apartment mail from time to time, and thus, can not easily receive it.

In light of the above circumstances, the court below should have confirmed the fact that the defendant actually received the above notice only after examining the above special circumstances, including the postal box structure, and after the confirmation thereof. Nevertheless, the court below did not reach this conclusion and found that there was a mistake by mistake of facts or by presumption of facts in violation of the rule of experience due to failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and the argument in the grounds of appeal pointing this out is justified. The Supreme Court ruling cited by the court below cannot serve as an appropriate precedent in this case, contrary to the purport of the case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)