Where a document of lawsuit is served on a corporation’s domicile but it is impossible to serve the document, whether the order of correction of address can be issued without viewing it as the representative’s address (negative) and whether the order of rejection of the complaint has been rejected on the ground that the correction of address was not made (negative)

Procedural acts that may take effect on a party to a lawsuit shall be an act of a natural person representing the legal entity or an act of such natural person. Thus, documents such as a complaint, summons and judgment, etc. in the legal entity which is the party to the lawsuit shall be served on the representative's address and residence in principle, and may be served on the business office or office of the legal entity. However, in case where the legal entity's address is sent to the address of the legal entity which is not the address of the representative but the director's address is not known but the director's address is not served due to the unknown address, in principle, an order to correct the address when the copy, etc. of the complaint is served to the representative's address which is shown in the certified legal entity's registry, etc. submitted by the plaintiff while filing the lawsuit, and the correction is ordered at the same time. Thus, it is erroneous to order the correction of the address merely

Articles 170 and 231 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Ma988 Decided January 29, 1965 (Gong1976, 9132) 76Da170 Decided April 27, 1976

(Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Order 96Ra2780 dated January 31, 1997

The part of the order of the court below that dismissed an appeal against the order to dismiss the complaint against the non-appeal and non-contentious family company, the same friendly industry company, the same large party company, and the same large cooperative construction company, shall be reversed, and the order of the court of first instance shall be revoked by the presiding judge of the court of first instance. The remaining reappeals by the

The grounds of reappeal (the grounds of reappeal as to the supplemental appellate brief, which was filed after the expiration of the period for reappeal, are examined to the extent that it supplements the grounds of reappeal).

1. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. The presiding judge of the court of first instance, on September 30, 1996, ordered the re-appellant to the Re-appellant on September 30, 1996, who became the plaintiff and filed against the non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party 5 (hereinafter the defendants) to notify the defendant non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party's legal representative of the claim amount and the reasons for calculating the initial date and the damages for delay. The above order of correction was served on October 5 of the same year, but the correction was not made within that period. On the other hand, the court of first instance sent a copy of the complaint, response and response notice, and a writ of summons to each of the defendants' respective addresses recorded in the complaint on October 22, 1996.

B. Accordingly, the presiding judge of the first instance court ordered the sub-appellant of the lawsuit of the re-appellant who attended on November 7, 1996, which was the date for the first instance trial of the case, to correct the defects in the purport of the claim and the reason for the claim stated in the order of September 30, 1996, within 5 days. Since the re-appellant did not appear on December 5, 1996, the second date for the correction, the presiding judge of the first instance court dismissed the complaint of this case on the same day on the ground that the re-appellant did not correct the purport of the claim and the reason for the claim, and did not correct the correction.

2. Judgment of the court of original judgment

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that since the defendants' address is clearly recorded in the complaint, and a certified copy of resident registration, certified copy of corporate register, etc. against the defendants were submitted together with the complaint, the court of first instance, after taking the method of re-service, etc., provided the re-appellant with an opportunity to correct and give consideration to the re-appellant when it becomes impossible to serve the plaintiff. Thus, the court of first instance, although the court sent the complaint to the address of the complaint against the defendants, it was impossible to serve the complaint as a director's unknown, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the defendants' address is identical with the address recorded in the complaint

3. Judgment of party members

A. On the part of the order to dismiss the complaint against Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Yong-Nam

The decision of the court below that the above order of correction of address cannot be asserted as unlawful on the ground that the correction of address as stated in the above order of correction is not a considerable period of time since the presiding judge of the court of first instance notified the above defendants' address within five days from November 7, 1996, although the order of correction was issued to correct the serviceable address in the court of first instance, and the summons of date of first pleading of the court of first instance, etc.

B. On the part of the order to dismiss the complaint against Defendant Vienna Co., Ltd., the same friendly industry Co., Ltd., the same large party Co., Ltd., the same large party construction Co., Ltd.

Litigations to be effective to a party to a lawsuit, which is a legal entity, shall be an act of a natural person representing the legal entity or an act of such natural person. Thus, documents, such as a complaint, a summons of date and a judgment, etc., to a legal entity which is a party to the lawsuit, shall be served to the representative, and thus, it shall be in principle done to the address and residence of the representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 64Ma988, Jan. 29, 1965; Supreme Court Order 76Da170, Apr. 27, 1976).

However, as in the case of this case, in case where the above defendants sent to the address of the above defendants recorded in the complaint which is not the address of each of the above defendants as the above defendants, but it is impossible to serve due to the director's unknown, in principle, the re-appellant shall serve the copy of the complaint as the address of each of the above defendants' respective representatives stated in the corporate register, etc. submitted in the lawsuit of this case, and shall order the correction of the address when it is not served. However, the presiding judge of the first instance court shall order the correction of the address only on the ground that it was impossible to serve the copy of the complaint, etc. with the address of the above defendants. Thus, on the ground that the above defendants' address was not corrected, the order of the presiding judge of the first instance court which dismissed the complaint against

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the order of rejection of complaint against the above Defendants by the presiding judge of the court of first instance was justifiable does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the above legal principles. This part of the argument is with merit.

4. Accordingly, among the order of the court below, the dismissal of the appeal against the order to dismiss the complaint against Defendant Vienna Co., Ltd., Defendant Bocheon Industrial Co., Ltd., Defendant Bocheon Industrial Co., Ltd., Defendant Daecheon Construction Co., Ltd. is reversed. This part of the case is sufficient to directly judge the members of the case. Thus, the presiding judge of the court of first instance revokes the order of this part, and the remaining reappeals by the re-appellant are dismissed. It

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)