Whether the delivery of postal items and the declaration of intention to the other party under the Postal Service Act have reached

The purport of the provisions of Articles 31 and 34 of the Postal Service Act and Articles 42 and 43 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is to clarify the limitation of the entrusted duties by clearly stating the method of delivery of the postal items entrusted to the delivery by the country where the postal service is monopolyd, and the postal items are properly given to the country when the postal items are delivered pursuant to the above provisions, and it does not lead to the legal effect of delivery to the country. Thus, the notification of the other party’s declaration of intent cannot be deemed to have been delivered to the other party whenever the postal items are delivered pursuant to the above provisions.

Articles 31 and 34 of the Postal Service Act; Articles 42(3) and 43 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; Article 111(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu20882 delivered on July 2, 1993

The judgment below is reversed;

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the evidence cited by the judgment below in comparison with the records, the court below's fact-finding and determination are justified and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the Food Sanitation Act, etc., or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, which points out the theory of lawsuit, or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence. The argument is without merit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant sent a written hearing held against the plaintiff to the location of the plaintiff's business by registered mail, and the non-party who was in charge of postal collection service of the building where the above business establishment is located, as a member of Gangnam-nam post office, sent the above mail to the security guards of the above building (○○ building) and entered his/her security room in the mail delivery certificate according to his/her delegation. The defendant did not attend the hearing as the plaintiff did not appear on the date of the hearing stated in the above hearing, and the defendant did not comply with the procedure of the hearing and did not give the plaintiff a separate opportunity to state his/her opinion, and made the disposition of this case without giving the plaintiff a separate opportunity to state his/her opinion. The court below determined that the notice was lawful in accordance with the provisions of the Postal Service Act, since Article 31 of the Postal Service Act and Article 42 (3) and Article 43 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that if a registered mail is delivered to the addressee in the same building or the same premises.

However, the purport of the provisions of Articles 31, 34, 42, and 43 of the Enforcement Decree of the Postal Service Act is to clarify the limitation of the entrusted affairs by clearly stating the method of delivery of the postal items entrusted to the delivery by the country where the monopoly of the postal service business, and under the above provisions, the postal items are deemed to be duly issued upon delivery under the above provisions, and it does not lead to the legal effect of delivery to the State. Thus, even if the postal items are delivered under the above provisions, it shall not be deemed that the notice of the other party's expression of intent has been delivered to the other party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu233, Feb. 14, 1984). Thus, even if the facts established by the court below are based on the facts established by the court below, the hearing cannot be deemed to have been lawfully delivered to the plaintiff, by failing to comply with the legal principles as to the measure of business suspension under Article 94 of the Postal Service Act, and the purport of the above provision is to be justified.

3. 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 who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)