[1] Whether the delivery by mail under Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act may be conducted in a case where the place of service by the person receiving the service is closed and there is no person to receive the service due to the closure of the place (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of "reasons for which a party cannot be held liable" under Article 173 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[3] The case holding that where a party who received an original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance sent by registered mail submits a petition of appeal on the 14th day from the date of actual receipt of the original copy of the judgment in accordance with the wording stated at the end of the judgment, it constitutes a case where the party cannot observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, it

[1] Articles 178, 183, and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 173 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 173 (1) and 189 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Ma914 Decided November 28, 1990 (Gong1991, 578) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da34133 Decided May 17, 2002 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Da9622 Decided June 11, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1391), Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2083 Decided March 12, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 625) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da1465 Decided September 15, 2005

Plaintiff

Japan Integrated Logistics Corporation

Cheongju District Court Decision 2006Na3869 decided May 15, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

When there is no person to receive the service (the person to receive the service or the supplementary service) due to the closure of the place of service of the person to receive the service, the service may not be made as well as the service by mail under Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Ma914, Nov. 28, 1990; 2001Da34133, May 17, 2002, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the first instance court's measure, which sent the original copy of the judgment sent by registered mail, which was returned, was lawful when the service of the original copy of the first instance court's judgment, which was executed as the address of the plaintiff and the date for preparatory pleading, was impossible due to the absence of closure of the documents, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal in this part.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The subsequent completion of procedural acts stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers only to a case where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them, and "reasons not attributable to them" refers to a case where the parties are unable to comply with the period despite their due diligence to do the procedural acts even though they have exercised their due diligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da14465 delivered on September 15, 2005, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, when the service of the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff performed by the mailman was impossible on October 14, 2005, on three occasions on the 17th of the same month, and on the 18th of the same month, on October 21, 2005, the court of first instance sent the original copy of the judgment to the plaintiff by registered mail on October 24, 2005, and the plaintiff received the registered mail attached with the original copy of the judgment through Korea-U.S. on October 24, 2005, and on the end of the judgment of the court of first instance delivered to the plaintiff, "if the plaintiff objects to this decision (this decision), the plaintiff may submit the petition of appeal to the court of first instance within two weeks from the date of receiving the original copy of the judgment to the court of first instance, and the plaintiff submitted the petition of appeal to the court of first instance on November 17, 2005.

Article 189 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the delivery by registered mail shall be deemed to have been delivered at the time of dispatch. However, considering the fact that the existence of the above special provisions on the time of delivery is not ordinarily known to the general public and that the delivery by the court does not expressly state that the delivery by the court is to be made, in the case of this case, the plaintiff shall be entitled to file an appeal by subsequent completion because it constitutes "the case where the period of appeal cannot be complied with due to any cause not attributable to the plaintiff" (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du9766 delivered on March 23, 2001).

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the appeal of this case is not allowed is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the completion of procedural acts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)