beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal
A. The relevant legal principles should, in principle, be served at the address, residence, place of business, or office of the person to be served (hereinafter referred to as “location, etc.”). The term “place of business or office” refers to the place of business or office of the person to be served, which is managed by the person to be served, and does not fall under the place of business of the person to be served (see Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). Meanwhile, according to Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating the service at the place of work, service at the place of work may be made only when the person to be served is unaware of the place of business, such as the address, etc. of the person to be served, or when the service at the place cannot be made at that place. Thus, service at the place of
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2004Ma535, Jul. 21, 2004).
However, each of the following facts is clear in the record:
① In filing the instant lawsuit on May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff entered “Seoul Seocho-gu H, 203”, a Defendant’s resident registration address, as the Defendant’s domicile, and separately submitted to the court a written complaint stating “Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu I Building and the Second Instance J” (hereinafter “instant workplace address”) as the Defendant’s workplace address.
② The first instance court served a duplicate of the complaint to the workplace address of this case, and thereafter served a notice of the sentencing date to the workplace address of this case, if the defendant was not submitted a written reply. In the workplace address of this case, the defendant received a duplicate of the complaint and the notice of the sentencing date.
③ On July 20, 2017, the first instance court rendered a judgment without pleading while the Defendant did not appear, and served the original copy of the judgment to the address of the workplace of this case, and received the Defendant’s work rent on July 26, 2017.