A. The purport of Article 422(1)11 of the Civil Procedure Act, and whether there is a ground for retrial under the same provision where a judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that the other party did not take any measure despite being aware of the other party’s address or domicile, or that the other party did not know of the existence of the other party’s domicile

B. Whether an appeal against an order of permission for service by public notice defective (negative) and an appeal against an order of permission for service by public notice, which is accompanied by forged documents, constitute an independent ground for retrial (negative)

A. The grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)11 of the Civil Procedure Act are to relieve the other party who was aware of the other party’s domicile, despite being aware of the other party’s domicile, or his/her false domicile or residence, and thus, was never aware of the fact that the lawsuit was pending. Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the above grounds for a retrial cannot be said to exist in a judgment where the judgment became final and conclusive because the other party was aware of the fact that the lawsuit was pending and no such measure was taken.

(b) An order to permit service by publication shall not be subject to appeal even if there is a defect in the family requirements, and therefore, even if a forged certificate, etc. was attached with the supporting material, it shall not be an independent ground for retrial.

(a)Article 422(1)11(b) of the Civil Procedure Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu28559 delivered on Nov. 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 227) 91Ma18 delivered on Feb. 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1154) 90Da17804 delivered on Nov. 8, 1991 (Gong192,71)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na9540 delivered on February 12, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant (Plaintiffs for retrial).

As to the ground of appeal by the Defendant (Re-Appellant)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in accordance with the whole purport of adopted evidence and oral argument that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the defendant was residing in Busan Dong-gu ( Address 2 omitted) and 1,005, Yongsan-gu, Seoul ( Address 2 omitted), which is the defendant's domicile on the registry, at least before the fourth day for pleading of the above case, in order to deal with the problem concerning the real estate in the above case at the office of the non-party, who was represented by the plaintiff in the above registry, at least before the fourth day for pleading of the above case, the plaintiff was raised at the address on the above registry or the service to the defendant was made by service by public notice, and determined that the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 11 of the Civil Procedure Act, which was known to the other party's domicile or false address and did not have been known to the other party to the lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be seen that the other party to the lawsuit was not aware of the above facts.

The above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and there is no violation of rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, an order to permit service by public notice is not subject to appeal even if there is a defect in the family requirements, and therefore, even if a forged certificate, etc. was attached as a supporting material, that alone does not constitute a ground for retrial independently. According to the records, since the defendant did not assert such content as a ground for retrial, even if the court below did not make a decision on it, it cannot be subject to appeal. The argument

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of 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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho