Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act where a person to be served with a document of lawsuit was unaware of the fact that the document was served without any negligence and the subsequent completion of Article 160 of the Civil Procedure

The delivery of litigation documents is merely an act of notifying the person to be served with the intent of the documents, regardless of the method in which such documents are served, and if the person to be served was unaware of the fact that the documents were served without any negligence, then if the service did not comply with the peremptory term due to such service, it is necessary to allow the subsequent completion of the neglected procedural acts.

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

Park So-young

Freeboard Kim

Seoul High Court Decision 60Da2058 delivered on November 8, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 2058 delivered on November 8, 1961

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's agent are as shown in the attached Table.

This is merely an act of notifying the person to be served with the intent of the document in any way, and if the person to be served with the document did not know the fact that the document was served without any negligence, it shall be interpreted as a case where the peremptory term cannot be complied with due to a cause not attributable to the so-called "liability" under Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it shall be permitted to supplement the neglected procedural acts. However, the original judgment cannot be deemed as an application for service by public notice on the ground that it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant's present domicile was known by the plaintiff's intentional act or gross negligence, and it cannot be deemed as a case where the defendant cannot comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to the defendant's fault, and whether the defendant's failure to know the fact that the original copy of the judgment was served with the original copy of the judgment was served (the reason that the previous director did not submit it can not be deemed as a negligence). Thus, the original judgment cannot be deemed as a case where the defendant failed to comply with the statutory term due to the above reasons.

Therefore, by applying Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)