(a) The receiver of documents, such as date, summons and judgment, that make it possible for a party to a lawsuit to a corporation;

B. Criteria for determining whether the person was aware of the delivery of the documents related to the lawsuit to the corporation

(a) Litigations to be effective in a party to a lawsuit which is a juridical person must be an act of a natural person representing that juridical person or an act for that natural person, so documents such as a date summons, summons, judgment, etc. shall be served to that juridical person;

B. Whether the first instance judgment on a corporation did not know that it was served by service by public notice is determined depending on whether the representative of the corporation knew that it was served by public notice.

Attorney Jeong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-won, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 75Na258 delivered on December 24, 1975

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, the judgment of the court of first instance, which served a copy of the gushed and a writ of summons at the address on the corporate register of the defendant corporation at the Busan Dong-dong, Busan-dong, Busan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong, but the defendant was unable to serve the documents due to the addressee's uncertainty, the presiding judge of the court of first instance ordered ex officio the defendant to serve the documents of this case by public notice, and the court of first instance also served the documents as service by public notice, and the period for appeal has expired as well as the above service by public notice by public notice at the court of first instance. Thus, the above service by public notice has the effect of service by public notice. Therefore, the defendant's office cannot be held liable for failure of the defendant to observe the appeal period.

2. Acts of litigation to be effective to a party to a lawsuit who is a juristic person shall be an act of a natural person representing the juristic person or an act of such natural person, so documents such as a gushe, summons of date and judgment, etc. shall be served to the representative.

According to the above decision, the defendant sent a writ of summons to the non-party representative and the date of pleading to the defendant's office, not the representative's domicile (see, e.g., No. 11 of the record), but the defendant's office, which is the office of the defendant corporation, to Busan Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu

However, since the service of litigation documents is an act of notifying the receiver of the contents and purport of the document by public notice or any other son method, it is reasonable to permit the completion of the neglected procedural acts by deeming that it constitutes a case where the peremptory term cannot be complied with due to a cause not attributable to the obligor under Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act, even if it is impossible to comply with the peremptory term due to any negligence on the part of the receiver, since the receiver knew that the document was served without any negligence.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's representative was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance against the defendant was served by means of service by public notice, that is, whether the defendant's representative knew of such service by public notice or not, in the case of this case, if the above circumstances were to exist, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's representative was aware that he was served by the judgment of the first instance, and that this is not a criticism that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the completion of procedural acts, unless there are any circumstances to see that this is caused by negligence of the representative. The court below's reasoning for this issue is not exempt from reversal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)