Where the period of reappeal has expired due to service by public notice to the address indicated in the petition of appeal, whether it was due to a cause not attributable to the re-appellant.

When the court below dismissed the re-appellant's appeal, and served the re-appellant's address as the place indicated in the petition of appeal, but it was impossible to serve it due to director's unknown, the court below's order of service by public notice ex officio and served by the court below's order of service by public notice, the re-appellant's relation delivered by service by public notice cannot be viewed as a cause for which the re-appellant cannot be held liable.

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellant] 90Ma446 decided Sep. 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 2091)

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 93Ra769 Dated September 6, 1993

The reappeal shall be dismissed.

The reappeal shall be deemed lawful.

According to the records, the order of the court below was served on September 29, 193 by the method of service by public notice to the re-appellant, and the re-appellant was sent on November 3 of the same year, and the record reveals the fact that the court below's order was served ex officio by ordering service by public notice to order ex officio when the presiding judge of the court below ordered service by public notice when the re-appellant, as a mortgagee of the object of auction of this case, at the time when the appeal was filed against the decision of permission of auction of this case, the address and resident registration address on the real estate register were 8 Dong 1503, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu ( Address 1 omitted) and the re-appellant was delivered with the same address as the petition of appeal.

On August 28, 28 of the same year, the re-appellant was a director of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu ( Address 2 omitted) 201 Dong 208 on the resident registration, but the latter's sentence continues to exist at the former address, and the mail for the re-appellant was transferred to the re-appellant when the mail office of this case was delivered to the former address, and the re-appellant's non-compliance with the re-appellant's re-appeal period is filed on the ground that the non-appellant's non-compliance with the re-appeal period was due to a cause not attributable to the re-appellant. However, "the party's non-compliance with its liability" under Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reason that the party's general attention for the litigation cannot be complied with even if the court below's relation delivered by the method of service by public notice cannot be viewed as a cause not attributable to the re-appellant's non-appellant's non-compliance period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 90Ma464, Oct.

Therefore, the reappeal of this case is an unlawful appeal as it is filed against the time limit for reappeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)