[1] The meaning of "office staff" that can be an agent for receipt in the supplementary service under Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] The case holding that a school employee in charge of the receipt, dispatch, classification, etc. of documents at a university is not in an employment relationship with a company that moved into a business incubator within the university but assist in postal receipt, etc. on behalf of the company and constitutes a "office employee" who can act as an agent for the company in connection with supplementary service under Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da53822 Decided December 13, 2007

[Re-Appellant]

Seoul High Court Order 2008Na81093 dated September 18, 2008

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In the supplementary service under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a clerical staff who can be an agent for receipt is not necessarily required to have an employment relationship with a recipient for a recipient, but is sufficient if he/she assist in the business for a person in ordinary sense (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da53822, Dec. 13, 2007, etc.).

According to the records of this case, the non-party, who is in charge of receipt, dispatch, classification, etc. of documents at ○ University, received the original copy of the judgment of this case which was sent to the re-appellant on August 20, 208. The appeal petition of this case was received by the court of first instance on September 4, 2008. However, the above non-party received the notification of the date for preparatory pleading and the date for preparatory pleading sent to the re-appellant on September 4, 2008. The above non-party received the original copy of the order to dismiss the appeal petition of this case. The non-party also received the above non-party. The non-party was sent the notification of the date for preparatory pleading and the date for preparatory pleading after attending the court of first instance after receiving the above notification of the date for preparatory pleading received by the above non-party, but did not raise any objection as to the receipt of the litigation document in this process. In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view the above non-party as an agent to receive the re-appellant.

Therefore, on September 4, 2008, when the petition of appeal of this case was submitted, the court below's order dismissing the petition of this case to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the clerical staff in the supplementary delivery contrary to the allegations in the grounds of reappeal.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)