The Plaintiff’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s petition of appeal on the ground that the presiding judge of the first instance court failed to pay the fees within the period specified in the above order of correction, although the Plaintiff was unable to receive a written order of correction of stamp and service fees from the court of first instance, and was unaware of such contents.

2. Determination

A. Article 184 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "a party, legal representative or attorney may report to the court any place other than his/her address, etc. at the place of service." Article 185 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if the party, legal representative or attorney changes the place of service (Article 185), the purport thereof shall be immediately reported to the court (Article 1). If the place of service is not known to the person who did not make the above report, the document to be served may be sent to the previous place of service (Article 2)." However, "if the place of service on a monthly basis is unknown" as mentioned above means that the other party may order the correction of his/her address or ex officio investigate the resident registration record card, etc., but it is reasonable to say that the delivery by registered mail may be made only when the place of service is unknown at least on the record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da31592, Aug. 24, 2001).

B. According to the records, while filing the instant lawsuit on June 6, 2012, the Plaintiff stated the Plaintiff’s address in the complaint as “Btel C,” the Plaintiff’s address at the above address on August 2, 2012, a certified copy of the order of correction on October 26, 2012, a certified copy of the order of correction on November 9, 2012, a certified copy of the oral argument on November 27, 2012, a certified copy of the written reply on November 27, 2012, and a certified copy of the written judgment on February 25, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted the written order to the court of first instance on March 6, 2013, which stated the Plaintiff’s address as “Btel C,” and the Plaintiff’s order of correction on March 6, 2013 as a certified copy of the written order of correction on the same address as that of the Plaintiff’s notice of correction on March 31, 2013.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's immediate appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

November 29, 2013

Judges Jin Jae-in

U.S. § 200