A. Although it is practically impossible for the Plaintiff to serve only the parcel number entered in the petition of appeal and the Plaintiff’s name indication alone, if it was possible to ask the Plaintiff to the administrator because of the lack of a small apartment building located outside of the Plaintiff’s residence, whether the Plaintiff’s failure to serve the document was attributable to the Plaintiff on the ground that the mailman did not indicate the number (negative)

(b)whether the plaintiff is responsible for the impossibility of delivery in case where, by himself in the petition of appeal, the plaintiff was unable to serve the document to his address, indicating a place other than the present address to that address, but the court does not serve the document again to another address on the record and fails to trace another address on the record (affirmative);

A. If it is impossible for the plaintiff to serve only the lot number and the plaintiff's name in the petition of appeal, and if it is actually impossible to serve the apartment because it does not indicate the Dong and unit numbers of the apartment, it shall be due to the reasons attributable to the above plaintiff. However, even though there is only the apartment building in which the plaintiff resides, and there is only the apartment building where the plaintiff resides, and if it is possible to serve the apartment upon the administrator the name of the person who resides in the apartment, it shall not be deemed that the mail office clerk attempted to serve it by the above method, even though the apartment building was small in the lot number and it is possible to do so. If it is returned because the address is unknown on

B. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s primary fault was found in the petition of appeal, in which the address other than the present address is entered, the court’s failure to serve the document as a separate address of the Plaintiff, which was recorded in the records of trial, was an incidental disposition, and even if the mailman failed to track the Plaintiff’s present address, it cannot be denied the Plaintiff’s liability.

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

Sung-mo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim Chang-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na28749 delivered on June 8, 1990

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the Plaintiff’s street is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All appeals by the plaintiffs Sung-sung, the same Park Jong-nam, and the same sex cards are dismissed, and the costs of appeal regarding this part of appeal are assessed against the above plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s street

According to the records, it is recognized that the street had been living in 56-5, 308, 56-2, 208, 56-30, 200, 300, 56-5,000, 56-30,000, 56-5,000, in Si/Gun/Gu-si, Si-si, and the petition of appeal of this case, and thus, the mailman, who was in charge of delivery of a writ of summons, returned the above documents on the ground that his address is unknown, and the court below ordered service by public notice. Thus, the court below did not have any evidence to conclude that the mailman would have been able to serve only when he attempted to trace the actual residence of the above plaintiff, and even if he could track the actual place of residence, it is difficult to view that the above documents failed to be served due to the reasons for which the above plaintiff was not responsible.

However, according to the records, it is recognized that the above plaintiff's address stated in the petition of appeal was only an apartment building called Manain, the above plaintiff's residential area, the 56-5-dong, the Mai-dong, the Mai-dong, the Mai-dong, the Mai-dong, the Mai-si, the Mai-si, the Mai-si, the Mai-dong, and unless there is the Dong-si, the above apartment building's name indication alone, if it is practically impossible to serve the above plaintiff's name indication alone, it is difficult to view that the above apartment building is attributable to the above plaintiff's causes attributable to the above plaintiff's failure to serve the documents. However, even though the above apartment building was established with a management office located in a small scale and it is possible to serve the documents by inquiring of the resident's name in the apartment, it is not deemed that the mailman's address is unknown, and

However, the court below's witness Kim Jong-won in charge of delivering the above documents stated that the mail office Kim Jong-won did not enter the above apartment unit's Dong and unit's number, and that the mail office was returned without asking to the apartment management office due to the absence of the manager. Even according to the above statement, there is a doubt that the mail office's house manager had a management office located in the apartment unit, but the mail office manager did not have a temporary manager, so he did not return it to the country with no unit's name. Thus, the court below should have seen the above apartment unit's name to a manager residing in the apartment management office by making a further deliberation as to the extent of the size of the apartment unit's above and whether the apartment unit's name is possible to be delivered if the resident's name is physical, and it was erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is reasonable to discuss this point.

2. As to the plaintiff's sexual abortion and sexual intercourse

According to the records, even though the above plaintiffs were residing in the Tridong Apartment A, 102, Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong-dong, 33-dong, Dong Dong-dong, Dong-dong, 33-dong, from the date of filing the lawsuit, they were unable to serve the summons on the ground that the date of pleading of the appellate court is not directorable, and thus, the court below ordered service by public notice. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, it was first impossible to serve the summons on the above plaintiffs, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above plaintiffs are responsible for the above plaintiffs, since it was due to the fact that the date of pleading for pleading against the above plaintiffs was entered in the petition of appeal, and therefore, the judgment of the court below with the same purport

Even if the present address is indicated as the present address in the evidence Nos. 5-1 (deposit) submitted in the first instance court, such as the theory of the lawsuit, the current address is indicated as the 5-1 (Deposit) of the Sil-dong Apartment A, Sil-si, Sil-si, and in the first instance court, even if the above plaintiffs' address is indicated as the present address, the court below should not be deemed to be the address at the time of submission of the petition of appeal, since the above plaintiffs' own address was entered in the petition of appeal submitted in the court below, which was submitted by the above plaintiffs, into the new address at the time of the Sil-dong, Sil-dong, Sil-dong, Sil-si, Sil-si, Sil-si, 102, and since the above plaintiffs' address was entered in the petition of appeal submitted in the court below, the court below shall be deemed to be the address at the time of submission of the petition of appeal, and as seen above, the mailman was not negligent in performing his business affairs that did not follow the present address of the above plaintiffs.

All of the arguments that the judgment of the court below contains errors in the rules of evidence and misapprehension of the legal principle are without merit.

3. There is no assertion in the grounds of appeal as to Plaintiff Park Jae-Nam.

4. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the plaintiff's street is reversed and remanded, and all appeals by plaintiffs Sung-sung, Sung-sung, and Park Jong-Nam are dismissed. The costs of appeal regarding the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)