Even if the court had the defendant serve documents of lawsuit against the defendant by stating an address other than the defendant's address in the complaint, it becomes a ground for retrial.

If an address of the defendant is stated in the complaint, and the document service for the defendant is served to a person who is not entitled to receive the document service under the Civil Procedure Act without a person who has received the right to receive the document service, then it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of this Act.

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

Sheet village, a foundation foundation

Defendant (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Cheongju District Court Decision 70Na56 delivered on September 16, 1970

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

Defendant (Re-Appellant, hereinafter simply referred to as Defendant)’s ground of appeal

Judgment on the first ground;

Of the facts alleged as the grounds for retrial by the defendant, the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter simply referred to as the plaintiff) did not review the defendant's legal representative's grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the defendant's aforementioned grounds for retrial did not constitute grounds for retrial since the defendant's legal representative did not review the defendant's grounds for retrial without the power of attorney and did not review the defendant's legal representative's above grounds for retrial, and the defendant's legal representative's address was stated in the complaint, which was not the defendant's address, and falsely stated in Seoul ( Address omitted), and served all false addresses to the defendant, and the defendant's right to attorney's right to represent was not granted by the defendant's legal representative, and if the defendant's legal representative did not receive the document's right to attorney's right to represent, the court below should have received the document's right to represent and received the document's right to attorney's right to represent in the civil procedure.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not deliberate and decide on this point, and did not err by misapprehending the legal provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, on the ground that the Defendant’s above assertion was rejected on the grounds that the Defendant did not have any defect in the power of attorney. The lower court did not reverse the judgment on this point.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the remaining grounds of appeal.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon