logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.11.13 2019나3840
운송료
Text

The judgment of the first instance, including the claims added by this Court, shall be amended as follows:

The plaintiff's primary domicile and the plaintiff's primary domicile.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the defendant's subsequent appeal

A. Article 185(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “When a party, legal representative or attorney alters the place where a service is to be made, the purport thereof shall be immediately reported to the court.” Article 185(2) of the same Act provides, “If the place where service is to be made to a person who does not make a report under paragraph (1) is unknown, the document may be sent to the previous place where service is to be made in such a way as prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations,” and Article 185(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “where the place where service is to be made on a monthly basis is unknown,” the phrase “where the place where service is to be made cannot be known to the other party or ex officio, it is reasonable to read that it is limited

Therefore, even if the parties to a corporation fail to serve the delivery place on the complaint, etc., it is erroneous for them to promptly send the delivery without regard to the delivery as the address of the representative of the corporation recorded in the corporate register recorded in the record.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da31592, Aug. 24, 2001).

According to the records, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) On December 31, 2018, the instant warden, the head office of which was entered in the Defendant’s corporate register that the Plaintiff submitted with the warden, shall be the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City C and fourth floor (hereinafter “instant address”).

(2) On the other hand, the above corporate register states that the address of inside directors D, a representative, is the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City E building and F.

3. On April 23, 2019, the first instance court served a notice of the date of pleading on April 23, 2019 with the first date of pleading as the "10:00" to the address of this case, and such notice became impossible to serve as a director's unknown on April 10, 2019.

4. The court of the first instance shall make April 17, 2019.

arrow