First Constitutional Court Decision on the 'Deemed Electronic Service' Provision
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the "deemed electronic service" provision, which considers documents registered in the civil electronic litigation system as served if the party does not check the registered document within one week after being notified of the registration, does not violate the Constitution. This is the Constitutional Court's first decision on the constitutionality of this provision.
On the 18th, the Constitutional Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the Act on the Use of Electronic Documents in Civil Litigation, etc., in a constitutional complaint case (2022HeonBa4) filed by Mr. A.
Mr. A filed a lawsuit against B Bank seeking damages, but after the case was dismissed in April 2018, he appealed. However, he failed to appear without permission twice at the appellate trial dates and did not apply for separate date designations, resulting in the lawsuit being terminated by "deemed withdrawal of the lawsuit."
Mr. A claimed that "he missed the trial date notification and therefore did not appear at the trial," and requested a constitutional review of the proviso of Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the Act on the Use of Electronic Documents in Civil Litigation, etc. However, the court declared the lawsuit terminated due to deemed withdrawal of the appeal and rejected Mr. A's request. Mr. A then directly filed a constitutional complaint.
Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the Act on the Use of Electronic Documents in Civil Litigation, etc., stipulates that service is deemed to have been made when the recipient checks the registered electronic document. However, the proviso states that if the recipient does not check the registration within one week from the date of notification, service is deemed to have been made on the day one week after the notification date.
However, the Constitutional Court did not accept Mr. A's argument. The Court held that the deemed electronic service provision does not infringe on the right to file a lawsuit.
The Court stated, "If the deemed electronic service provision were not in place, there is a risk that litigation could be indefinitely delayed if a party intentionally does not check the registered electronic document to delay the trial process," and added, "While guaranteeing the parties' right to a fair trial, it is necessary to narrowly recognize exceptions regarding the effective timing of electronic service as a premise for prompt and smooth service for swift trials."
Furthermore, the Court explained, "Considering that checking the electronically served document is done through a simple procedure of logging into the electronic litigation system, the one-week period stipulated in the deemed electronic service provision is not excessively short," and "The Act on Electronic Documents in Civil Litigation, etc., sufficiently provides regulations for cases where parties cannot receive electronic service, ensuring that parties are not disadvantaged in service due to reasons beyond their responsibility."
It emphasized, "The deemed electronic service provision does not appear to exceed the legislative discretion related to service for electronic litigation proceedings and therefore does not infringe on the right to file a lawsuit under Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution."
Han Su-hyun, Legal Times Reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
