The case holding that the defendant is not liable for the site for delivery of judgment

In a case where the head of the defendant who is an quasi-incompetent has left the domicile of the defendant at all different places, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit at the defendant's address and had the non-party who is the defendant's site receive the defendant's complaint and oral argument delivery line, and in a case where the defendant's judgment among the defendant's land was delivered by the same method and became final and conclusive as it is, it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant is not liable for the fact that the defendant's land for delivery of

Article 159 of the former Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant¡¯s attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. All of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

On April 25, 4288, the plaintiff's attorney decided that the amount of 2,275,000 shall be reduced to the defendant on May 25, 288 under the agreement to perform the registration procedure by establishing a mortgage of the second instance court on the order of real estate listed in the attached list of the same person's possession on a short-term period of 4288.4. 25, the plaintiff-appellant was jointly and severally liable for the non-party 1 and the Korean Mine Corporation. The defendant stated that the defendant did not implement the registration procedure for establishing a mortgage under the electrical agreement to be collected, and denied the defendant's answer against the plaintiff's principal, and the defendant's legal representative could not make a quasi-payment decision as the waste), which is the defendant's head of the company (the plaintiff's representative may be declared as the deceased's head of the defendant's non-party 1 (the quasi-payment decision as the waste), but the plaintiff's request was made by forging and preparing a document, but the plaintiff's criminal issue may not escape due to the plaintiff's claim.

As evidence method, the plaintiff's attorney submitted Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were admitted only to the government official seal, and denied the purport of the evidence. The defendant's attorney submitted the evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and sought a witness's personal examination, and the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 were confirmed only to the government official seal. 3.

As to the legality of the public prosecution, it is sufficient that the defendant had been living in the area No. 198, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the time of this lawsuit, which is the present address for 20 years prior to that of the defendant, and there is no fact that the non-party 1, the head of the defendant, resides in the area No. 739, Nam-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the time of this lawsuit, and the plaintiff, who has filed an action with his address, received the oral statement No. 739, and then, the court below decided on June 23, 428 as to the non-party 2, which had been the first instance court's decision on the non-party 4, which had been delivered to the plaintiff by the same method and decided on July 2, 428, which had been the first instance court's decision on the non-party 2, which had been the first instance court's decision on the non-party 3's appeal, and thus, it could be acknowledged that the non-party 2's appeal was legitimate.

If so, it is clear that the Plaintiff did not conclude a mortgage contract on a loan for consumption and on this real estate between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit, which is premised on its existence, shall be dismissed. Since the judgment of the court below which differs from this conclusion is unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 386, 89, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Hak-su (Presiding Judge)