The case holding that if a summary order served on the office because of the failure to leave the office, cannot be the ground for requesting the recovery of right to formal trial

The case holding that, even though a summary order was not served due to the failure to leave the office, it cannot be a legitimate ground for requesting formal trial against the summary order which became final and conclusive due to the lapse of the deadline for requesting formal trial due to the lapse of the deadline for requesting formal trial, since a person who was aware of the fact that an additional lawsuit was filed against him, should have contacted the above office and confirmed mail by him or sought the method of knowing the progress of the lawsuit, etc.

Articles 345, 453(1), and 458(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 96Mo56 dated August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2951) Supreme Court Order 98Mo128 dated December 10, 1998

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Order 2002 dated May 28, 2002

The reappeal is dismissed.

According to the records, the order of summary order issued by the Daegu District Court for the violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act to the re-appellant was served as the office of the non-appellant on June 10, 200, and his employee Kim Sung-he received it, it is clear that the Re-appellant filed a claim for formal trial on June 22, 200. Thus, the above summary order was confirmed due to the lapse of the deadline for requesting formal trial of the re-appellant. Even though the Re-appellant was aware that he did not go to the above office at the time of delivery of the above summary order and his employees could not contact the re-appellant, it cannot be viewed that the above decision of dismissal was not unlawful since the court below's decision of dismissal of the above formal trial did not affect the above facts by contact with the above office or by the method of knowing the progress of the lawsuit (see the above court's decision of dismissal for formal trial of the non-appellant's claim for formal trial of this case. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the above circumstances asserted by the Re-Appellant did not constitute an unlawful reason for the above alteration of the claim for formal trial of this case.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)