According to Article 170 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, service is conducted at the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business, or office of the person to receive the service, and even if the person to receive the service was served at a place other than the place reported in writing by the party to the service, such service is lawful as long as the actual domicile, temporary domicile, place of business, or office of the person to receive the service was unknown. However, even though it is evident in the records that the location of the re-appellant as indicated in the judgment of the first instance court in this case and the location reported to the address of the re-appellant by the petition of appeal in this case is in Daegu-gu, Seo-gu, Daegu-gu ( Address 2 omitted) where the order for the correction of recognition was served is served, the above order for the correction of recognition cannot be deemed to have been served at a legitimate place (see the judgment of the first instance court).

According to the mail service report as to the above order for recognition, since the person who was served in the above Daegu-si ( Address 2 omitted) was in absence of the re-appellant, the above non-party was delivered to the non-party who is the office worker of the re-appellant. However, according to the letter of notice service as to the order for rejection of the appeal of this case, the non-party stated that the above non-party had worked as office worker of the re-appellant at the time of January 11, 1980 when the above non-party received the above order for recognition correction, and according to the letter of notice of notice service as to the order for rejection of the appeal of this case, the above non-party was delivered to the original copy of the order for rejection of the appeal of this case at the same place as of January 25 of the same year. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that it is difficult to believe that the above non-party's letter of certificate of confirmation was written.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the above non-party's supplementary service was illegal on the premise that the non-party was not a member of the re-appellant at the time of the receipt of the above order to supplement the stamp.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Sap-ho (Presiding Justice) Man-ho (Presiding Justice)