Whether a factory of a company operated by a person receiving service is a legitimate place for service (negative)

The term “business office or office” in the main sentence of Article 170(1) of the Civil Procedure Act means a business office or office operated by a recipient of service, so even if a recipient of service operates a company, the factory of the above company with a separate legal personality shall not be deemed to be its business office or office. However, it shall not be deemed to be a lawful service place, since it is merely its business place.

Article 170(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na19489 delivered on May 24, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was served to Jeonbuk Kim-gun, the defendant's domicile, but it was impossible to serve the original copy due to the lack of long-term closure, the court of first instance served the original copy to the above place by mail service, and the defendant operated the factory of the Samsung Electric Co., Ltd. at the above place as well as the non-party during the first trial. Thus, the above postal service against the defendant was lawful.

However, according to the main text of Article 170 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, "service shall be made at the address, residence, place of business or office of the person to be served." Thus, since the office or office of the person to be served refers to the office or business office of the person to be served, even if the defendant was operating the above company, it cannot be said that the defendant's office or business office of the above company with a separate corporate personality is a business office or office of the defendant. However, since the defendant's work place is nothing more than the defendant's work place

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which judged that the original copy of the judgment was legally served on the defendant on the premise that the above place is the place of service to the defendant, shall have affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the place of service. The allegation contained

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 by the assent of all Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)