(a) Whether the delivery of postal items under the Postal Service Act can be seen as the arrival of declaration of intention to the other party;

(b) Whether the request for repair of defects is appropriate for the disposition of removal of illegal parties where it is not delivered to the construction contractor.

A. The purport of the provision under Article 31 of the Postal Service Act and Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is only the delivery of a postal item by deeming that the postal item is duly delivered upon delivery under the provision, and it does not result in the legal effect that the truster intends to achieve as the delivery of the said item. Thus, even if the postal item is delivered under the above provision, it cannot be deemed that the notice of other party’s declaration of intention has been delivered to the other party or that the delivery under the Civil Procedure Act has been effective.

B. If the Plaintiff Company closed its office within a different place and only the agent performing his duties performed his duties at a different place, it cannot be deemed to be served on the Plaintiff on the ground that the employee in charge of the management of the Plaintiff’s entire address building, who received a written request for repair of defects, does not correspond to the Plaintiff’s employee or the person living together. In addition, if the employee in charge of management did not deliver the written request to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not agree to notify the Defendant of the place for receipt of the written request for repair of defects in the contract, and the Plaintiff’s demand for repair of defects can be made to the Defendant’s guarantor, and the Plaintiff agreed to repair the defects with the defect deposit directly paid by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not know of the occurrence of the above defect and the fact that there was a request for the repair of defects, and thus, there was a justifiable reason for the failure to perform the repair of defects. Thus, the disposition of the instant improper businessman on the ground that the Plaintiff did not repair the defects without any justifiable reason even

(a) Article 31 of the Postal Service Act, Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the Postal Service Act, Article 111(1)(b) of the Civil Act, Article 31 of the Postal Service Act, Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the Postal Service Act, Article 70-18 of the Budget and Accounts Act, Article 89(1)

Oral Construction Corporation

Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu86 delivered on March 29, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 1 of the Postal Service Act provides that the purpose of this Act is to contribute to the promotion of public welfare by providing fair and appropriate postal services by prescribing basic matters on postal service. Article 2 (1) of the same Act provides that postal service shall be managed by the State, and postal service shall be administered by the Minister of Communications. In Article 31 of the same Act, postal service shall be delivered to a place indicated on the surface thereof: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases prescribed by Presidential Decree. In Article 38 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, postal service shall be delivered to the competent delivery post office: Provided, That in cases of the same building or premises, postal service shall be delivered to the management office, reception office, or custodian; in paragraph (3), the postal service which is to be handled by registration shall be delivered to the same person (including the person working at the same workplace) after obtaining confirmation of the receipt from the recipient under the proviso of paragraph (1) of the same Article, and the delivery of postal service shall be deemed to have been properly delivered to the other party according to the above provision of the 310th of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on evidence of this case. The plaintiff's order for repair of defects was not issued to the above 172,50,00 won for the first new construction of the Changwon Police Station, Namnam-do, and the construction of the second new construction of the above police station was completed again on July 20, 1979, and the construction was completed on February 28, 1980. The above construction work period is three years after the completion of the completion inspection, and the amount equivalent to 5/100 of the construction contract amount is paid to the plaintiff as the warranty bond, and the defect that occurred during the defect repair period is not known to the plaintiff. The plaintiff or the performance guarantor of the above construction work is not entitled to repair the above 170,000,000 won for the first new construction work, and the defendant's order for repair of the above 196,000,0000 won for the above 196,000,000 won for the above defect repair work.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)