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

(b) Whether there exists a cause attributable to the party, in cases where a duplicate, etc. of a petition of appeal is served lawfully and the document of lawsuit is served by public notice (affirmative)

A. Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the period even though the party has fulfilled its duty of care to conduct the procedural acts in question.

B. In a case where the service of the document of lawsuit is impossible due to the impossibility of being served on the plaintiff as a copy of the petition of appeal and the summons of the first date for pleading, while the lawsuit was being served lawfully, it is different from the case where the document of lawsuit was served by public notice due to the impossibility of being served from the duplicate of the original petition of appeal to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff was also aware of the fact that the defendant filed an appeal, the plaintiff is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and inquire about the result thereof. Therefore, even though the plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the judgment of the court below was pronounced, barring any special circumstance, even if the plaintiff could not comply with the peremptory period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff,

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 86Da2224 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987,641). Supreme Court Decision 4286Da210 delivered on August 31, 195, Supreme Court Decision 65Da1675 delivered on October 19, 1965

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 89Na27316 delivered on April 25, 1990

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

It is to first judge whether the appeal of this case is legitimate or not.

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "any reason for which a party cannot be held liable" refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the period despite the party's exercise of generally required care to conduct the pertinent procedural acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4286Da210, Aug. 31, 1954; Supreme Court Decision 86Da2224, Mar. 10, 1987).

According to the records, when the court below served documents of lawsuit on the plaintiff, a copy of the petition of appeal and a writ of summons of summons of the first time of pleading (10:00, Nov. 8, 1989) shall be sent to the plaintiff as the plaintiff's address to 104-52 welfare apartment Da-dong, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, which is recorded as the plaintiff's address, and the non-party's living together (e-mail report is written as the plaintiff's address, and a writ of summons of the first time of pleading on March 6, 1987 was delivered to the plaintiff, but it was impossible to serve the plaintiff on the second date of pleading (14:00, Dec. 6, 1989) on the ground that it was long-term closure, and the third time of pleading of the first time of pleading (14:00, Nov. 1400) was served on the plaintiff's living together, 197.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the duplicate of the petition of appeal of this case and the writ of summons on the first date for pleading of pleadings shall be deemed to have been delivered lawfully to the plaintiff. As such, in a case where the delivery of litigation documents is impossible due to unavoidable service by public notice because the delivery of litigation documents was impossible due to the impossibility of service from the duplicate of the petition of appeal of this case and the summons on the first date for pleading of pleadings of this case, it is different from the case where service by public notice was made due to impossibility of service by public notice. Thus, the plaintiff was also aware of the fact that the plaintiff filed an appeal. Therefore, even if the plaintiff could not comply with the period for appeal, which is the peremptory period, because he had known that the judgment of the court below was pronounced, barring any special circumstance, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff who is the party cannot comply with the period due to any cause not attributable to him (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Da1675, Oct. 19, 196; Supreme Court Decision 82Da22424, Mar. 19, 1987).

As a result, the instant appeal is filed after the final appeal period, which is the peremptory period, has expired, and it does not meet the requirements for the subsequent completion of procedural acts, so it is obvious that it is an unlawful final appeal, and thus, it is not possible to correct its defect.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, we dismiss the plaintiff's appeal and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)