service of documents of action to an absentee without being served to the administrator of the absentee

Effect of Time Service

If an administrator is appointed by the court, only such administrator may, for the sake of an absentee, conduct procedural acts, such as service by court only on behalf of the administrator or on behalf of the administrator.

Article 25 of the Civil Act, Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Non-party 1 administrator of the non-party 1 (Attorney Seo-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 67Na227 decided September 17, 1968; 67Na227 decided September 17, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

With respect to the plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1, if a non-resident re-appellant is appointed by the court, it can be interpreted that only the administrator or the administrator can conduct litigation against the non-resident. In this case, even if the service of litigation documents is made to the non-party 2 who is appointed by the court as the administrator, and the service is made to the non-party 2 without being made to the non-party 2 who is appointed as the administrator by the court, the service cannot be deemed legitimate. This case's original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance is service to the non-resident, and the service cannot be recognized even if it is made to the non-party 2, the administrator was living in the same place as the defendant's last address and the administrator was aware of the non-party 2's domestic affairs and the administrator was not aware of the service to the absentee, and the decision that the court below recognized that the non-party 2's appeal was legitimate after the filing of a lawsuit by the court is not reasonable and reasonable.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

The statement of each witness in the theory is somewhat ambiguous in the original judgment, but it is interpreted by the original judgment to have rejected it, and unless it is possible to find out the data that the original judgment of the defendant who did not recognize it as a trust relation was unlawful, the argument about this matter is ultimately attributable to the criticism of the lower court's entire authority on the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts, and the explanation of the reasoning of the original judgment on the cancellation of trust is nothing more than unnecessary. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 399, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)