According to the records, it is obvious that the presiding judge of the court below dismissed the petition of appeal of the re-appellant on March 26, 1971, because the court below was the defendant at the court of original instance 10:00 on March 10, 1971, and the place between the directors of the plaintiff ○○, who is the other party to the appeal, was unknown, and thus, it became impossible to serve the plaintiff ○○○ upon the plaintiff ○○, the other party to the appeal. Thus, although the above plaintiff's address was ordered to be revised within five days after the notice was received, the re-appellant did not make an amendment within the prescribed period. Thus, according to Article 231 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 371 of the same Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 371 of the same Act, the presiding judge shall dismiss the petition of appeal, and even if the appellate court is unable to serve the petition of appeal, the presiding judge shall order the appellant to correct the defects within the prescribed period, and if the appellant fails to correct the defects, the presiding judge shall dismiss the petition of appeal ex officio.

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court