Whether service in respect of a juristic person can be viewed as service place of another juristic person's business office or office, the representative of which holds concurrent office (negative)

Service on a legal entity shall be made on the representative corresponding to the legal representative (Article 60 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, in principle, the address, domicile, place of business or office of the representative (Article 170(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The term “business office or office” refers to the business office or office of the legal entity in question. As such, the business office or office of another legal entity holding a separate legal personality, the representative of which is concurrently held, is merely the workplace of the representative.

Articles 60 and 170(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

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

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea Science and Technology Scholarship Foundation (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na45674 delivered on June 12, 1997

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant corporation was unable to comply with the above period of appeal on November 7, 1996 due to the non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 9's main office or non-party 9's office's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9's main office's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's main office's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's office's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's office'.

2. The service of documents on a legal entity shall be conducted on the representative corresponding to the legal representative (Article 60 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, in principle, the address, domicile, place of business or office of the legal representative is considered as a matter of principle (Article 170(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The term “business office or office” refers to the business office or office of the legal entity in question. Thus, the business office or office of another legal entity holding a separate legal entity, the representative of which is holding concurrent office, is merely the place of work of the legal representative (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da21176, Feb. 25, 1992).

Therefore, even if the above non-party is the representative director of the non-party company, which has a separate legal personality from the defendant corporation, the non-party company's office is merely the non-party's workplace, and thus, it cannot be viewed as the service place for

In addition, even after examining the evidence or records employed by the court below, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the above non-party was served with the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance on July 4, 1994 by the employee of the non-party company.

In light of the above, since the original copy of the judgment of the first instance cannot be deemed as being legally served on the defendant corporation, it shall be deemed that the period of appeal has not elapsed as of November 7, 1996, which submitted a written appeal for the subsequent completion to the court below. Thus, the court below should consider this as a lawful filing of appeal and make a decision on the merits. However, the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was legally served on the defendant corporation on the premise that the office of the non-party company is the place of delivery to the defendant corporation, and the disposition which dismissed the original copy of the judgment on the premise that the non-party's office was the place of delivery to the defendant corporation, and the above non-party recognized that it received it, and thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the place of delivery, or by misunderstanding

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)