A. The meaning of “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

(b) A case where the reappeal of subsequent completion is deemed unlawful;

(a) “Grounds for which a party cannot be held liable” as stipulated in Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act means the grounds for which a party cannot observe the period even though he had exercised general care to conduct the procedural acts in question;

(b) A case where the reappeal of subsequent completion is deemed unlawful;

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

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

Yu Jae-in

Seoul Central District Court Order 90Ra468 Dated October 15, 1990

The reappeal shall be dismissed.

1. The reappeal shall be regarded as lawful;

A. According to the record, the original copy of the order of the court below against the re-appellant was received on October 19, 1990 by the maximum number of 1051, Dongdaemun-gu 2, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and 1051, and it is clear that the re-appeal was received by the court below on December 11, 1990.

B. The Re-Appellant did not receive the original copy of the order of the court below, and the maximum amount of the above receipt was the employee of the herb bank operated by the Re-Appellant by 1989, and the Re-Appellant was a person who has liquidated his employee relationship and hedginged his employee relationship. The Re-Appellant received the original copy of the above decision from the maximum of the above No. 10 on December 10, 1990, and therefore the re-appeal of this case is lawful.

However, according to the record, the re-appellant is the owner of the object of auction of this case, and the address of the real estate registration office is 1051, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, and therefore, the application for auction of this case was filed to the address of the owner (re-appellant). Thus, the application for auction of this case also becomes subject to the decision to commence auction, and the original decision to commence auction of Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu 2, 1051 to June 7, 1990 also received a maximum number of co-inheritorss, and the notice of auction date is also received on July 23, 1990.

In addition, the Re-Appellant filed an appeal against the decision of permission of the auction of this case by stating the same address as the Seoul Dongdaemun-dong 1051 in the petition of appeal. Accordingly, the court below stated the Re-Appellant's address as the same place when dismissing the Re-Appellant's appeal, and served the original copy of the decision at the same place.

For the above reasons, the address of the Re-Appellant at the time of service of the order of the court below is 1051,00,000,000 residents and employees of the above Seoul Dongdaemun-gu, and the maximum amount of the above subparagraph is regarded as a person entitled to receive supplementary service. On the ground that the Re-Appellant has a statement for the maximum number of houses offered by the Re-Appellant or a business registration certificate for any above houses, it is not the place of service where the above head received the original of the order of the court below, but it is not the place of service, and it cannot

Thus, the order of the court below is served on the re-appellant on October 19, 190, and the re-appeal of this case should be deemed to have been raised over the period of re-appeal.

C. In addition, the re-appellant cannot comply with the re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's failure to comply with the re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's re-appellant's non-appellant's non-liability

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "a party shall not be held liable for it" refers to the reason why the party cannot observe the period even though he did not exercise general attention to conduct the procedural acts in question. In this case, the re-appellant's re-appeal period cannot be deemed to fall under such a case.

2. Therefore, the reappeal of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful without any judgment on the grounds of reappeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)