[1] Termination period of withdrawal of an appeal (=before a decision of dismissal is made)

[2] Whether the office of the company, which has separate legal personality, operated by the person to be served, constitutes the business office or office of the person to be served (negative)

[3] Whether the service of documents is lawful without being served on the place of domicile, etc. (negative)

[1] An appeal may be withdrawn before a final judgment has been rendered by the appellate court. The legal proceedings of the appellate court shall be governed by the provisions concerning the appeal (Articles 393(1) and 443(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, the appeal may also be withdrawn only before the decision on the appeal is made.

[2] In principle, service shall be made at the address, residence, business office, or office of the person to be served (Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The term “business office or office” refers to the business office or office of the person to be served, and the place of service of the person to be served refers to the business office or office of the person to be served (see Article 183(2) of the same Act). The office operated by the person to be served, and the office of the company having a separate legal personality, cannot be deemed the business office or office of the person to be served,

[3] According to Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating the service at work place, service at work place may be conducted only when the person to be served does not know the address of the person to be served or is unable to serve at that place. Thus, service at work place without attempting to serve the service at the address such as the address specified in the written complaint, written application for payment order, etc. is unlawful.

[1] Articles 393(1) and 443(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu8029, 8036 decided Jun. 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1182), Supreme Court Decision 91Da21176 decided Feb. 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 1123), Supreme Court Decision 97Da31267 decided Dec. 9, 197 (Gong1998Sang, 225), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da60197 decided Apr. 25, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1239)

Samsung Life Insurance Co.

Seoul Central District Court Order 2004Ra88 dated May 24, 2004

The reappeal is dismissed.

1. The appeal may be withdrawn before the final judgment of the appellate court has been rendered. The legal procedure of the appellate court shall be governed by the provisions concerning the appeal (Articles 393(1) and 443(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, the appeal may also be withdrawn only before the decision of the appellate court is made.

Since it is obvious that an appellant has withdrawn an appeal after the decision of the original court, it shall not have the effect of taking the appeal.

2. In principle, service should be made at the address, residence, place of business, or office of the person to be served (hereinafter referred to as "place of business, etc.") (Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The term "place of business or office of the person to be served refers to the place of business or office of the person to be served, and the place of service of the person to be served refers to the place of business or office of the person to be served (see Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). The office of the person to be served with a separate legal personality can not be the place of business or office of the person to be served, and it does not go through the place of service (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu8029, 8036, Jun. 27, 1989; 91Da21176, Feb. 25, 1992; 97Da31267, Dec. 9, 197).

Meanwhile, according to Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating the service at a work place, service at a work place may be conducted only when the person to be served is unaware of the address, etc. of the person to be served or is unable to serve at such place. Thus, service at a work place without attempting to serve the service at the address, etc. as stated in the written complaint, written application for payment order, etc.,

The court below determined that the above service cannot be lawful on the ground that the office of the appellant who has separate legal personality from the appellant is not the office or the office of the appellant but the office of the representative director, and that the creditor Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. stated the appellant's address accurately in the application for the payment order of this case as the service place of the payment order separately, and the court of first instance served the appellant's address as the service place of the payment order of the payment order. The court of first instance received it from the beginning because the non-party 1 was not the appellant's address and received it from the beginning, it cannot be said that it did not know the place of the appellant's address and it did not constitute a case where the service cannot be made at the place of domicile and others

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to service.

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)