Where the service for the capital reduction has been made to the previous domicile or temporary domicile before the confinement without the warden of the correctional institution, etc., the validity of such service (negative)

Article 169 of the former Civil Procedure Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) is a corresponding provision to the restriction on the acceptance of correspondence against the re-capital reduction as stipulated in Articles 18 and 62 of the former Criminal Administration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4936 of Jan. 5, 1995). It is interpreted as a provision considering the necessity of the public interest to monitor re-capital reduction for the maintenance of order of the prison, etc., and the fact that when the documents are served at the address and the place of residence before re-capital reduction, etc. for the purpose of maintaining the order of the prison, etc., the delivery of the documents is a kind of legal representative for re-capital reduction. Furthermore, if the delivery of re-capital reduction was made to the previous main or habitual residence before re-capital reduction without the warden of the prison, etc., it is invalid, even if the court of the lawsuit did not know the party or the previous person involved in the litigation.

Article 169 of the former Civil Procedure Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6626 of January 26, 2002) (see current Article 182)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Meu349 Decided December 28, 1982 (Gong1983, 354) Supreme Court Decision 2002Ma4058 Decided January 15, 2003

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court Order 2009Ra380 dated March 19, 2009

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 169 of the former Civil Procedure Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) is a provision corresponding to the restriction on acceptance of correspondence for the re-reduction of capital as stipulated in Articles 18 and 62 of the Criminal Administration Act. It is interpreted as a provision taking into account the need for the public interest to monitor the re-reduction of capital for the maintenance of order in the detention room, and the fact that when documents are served at the address, residence, etc. before being confined for the maintenance of order in the detention room, the document to be served for the maintenance of order in the custody room, including the prison, have taken time to deliver the documents to the re-delivery. Furthermore, the warden of the prison, etc. is a kind of legal representative for the delivery of re-capital reduction. Thus, if the court of the lawsuit was at the previous main residence and residence before the re-delivery was delivered without the warden of the prison, etc., it is null and void, and even if the court of the lawsuit did not know the fact of acceptance of the party or person involved in the lawsuit (see, Supreme Court en banc Decision 28200.

Meanwhile, Article 182 of the current Civil Procedure Act provides that “Service on a person arrested, detained, or detained in a prison, detention house, or detention room of a police agency shall be made to the head of a prison, detention house, or police agency.” Article 184 of the same Act provides that “The party, legal representative, or attorney may report to the court a place other than his/her address, etc. (limited to a place within the Republic of Korea) as a place where service is to be made.” Article 8(1) of the Rules on the Regulations on the Promotion of Service Affairs and the Promotion of Business-Related Matters (Article 203-9 of the same Act, Article 1102 of the Rules on Court Decision) provides that “The service on a corporation is a representative of the corporation

According to the records, the re-appellant filed a lawsuit claiming the purchase price of goods with Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap29028. The above court rendered a judgment dismissing all of the re-appellant's claims on October 31, 2008. The judgment was served on the legal representative of the first instance court on November 17, 2008. The re-appellant did not attach the stamp and service fees upon submitting the petition of appeal on December 1, 2008. The presiding judge of the first instance court issued an order of correction on December 10, 2008, "10,000 won for stamp and delivery fees and KRW 108,720 won within seven days from the date of service," and the court below stated the fact that the non-party 2's order of correction was not known to the address of the above defendant 1, the defendant 201 and the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, the defendant 2, the defendant 1, the defendant 201, the defendant 2.

Nevertheless, the order of the presiding judge of the first instance court who rejected the petition of appeal of this case and the decision of dismissal of appeal of the court below is erroneous on the ground that the order of correction was not complied with within the deadline of correction on the premise that the order of correction was legally served to the re-appellant. The ground of appeal of this point is with merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)