proof of service by means of evidence other than the service report

It is reasonable to view that the service report which the agency, which prepared the reasons for service in writing and submitted to the court pursuant to the provisions of Article 178 of the Civil Procedure Act, is not merely a simple method of evidence for the fact of service. Therefore, even if the contents are different from the actual contents of service, if a lawful service is proved by other evidence methods,

Article 178 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da930 Delivered on October 30, 1952

Sam Jong, Inc.

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu95 delivered on October 18, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since it is reasonable to view that the service report submitted to the court by an agency, which prepared the reasons for service in writing and submitted to the court under Article 178 of the Civil Procedure Act, is not merely a simple method of evidence for the fact of service. Thus, even if the contents are different from the actual contents of service, if a lawful service is proved by other evidence methods, such

According to the facts duly confirmed and the records, the court below affirmed the judgment below that the summons of October 4, 1983 against the plaintiff on the date of pleading 14:00, which is the date of pleading 1, 1983, which is the date of pleading 1, 1983, against the plaintiff, was delivered lawfully to the plaintiff's office, who is the plaintiff's clerk's name and omitted at the plaintiff's office, which is the place of delivery of the documents around September 12, 1983, and the service report was prepared differently as if the service report was delivered directly to the plaintiff's representative and received the seal

The issue is that the judgment of the court below which declared the termination of a lawsuit on the premise that the delivery of a writ of summons for the date of pleading is not effective, unless it denies the court's legitimate fact-finding without any ground, is erroneous as it violates Articles 233 and 241 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju