(a) Where the lawsuit is pending by public notice and causes attributable thereto;

(b) Where a party fails to report the transfer of address to a court, while any director is involved;

A. In a case where the service of documents in a lawsuit is impossible as a result of the impossibility of being served by public notice during the process of the lawsuit, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning to the point of time, different from the case by public notice. Therefore, if the parties did not ask the court of the progress of the lawsuit, they shall be negligent.

B. As long as the primary negligence of the party who did not report the transfer of address to the court while the director was found, the court cannot deny the party’s liability even if the mailman was in bad faith to trace the party’s present address when sending the order to dismiss the petition of appeal to the previous address, despite the fact that the mailman was unable to do so.

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu224 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987,641) (Gong1991,593 delivered on December 21, 1990). (B) Decision 90Meu21206 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong1991,467)

Re-appellant

Busan High Court Order 89Na2530 dated June 22, 1990

The reappeal shall be dismissed.

We examine the legitimacy of the reappeal of this case due to a subsequent completion.

Even according to the Re-Appellant’s assertion, the Re-Appellant did not report the transfer of address to the court below upon filing an objection against the order to correct the recognition of the court below regarding the appeal and appeal of this case, and reported it to the competent post office. The mailman intended to serve the original copy of the order to dismiss the above appeal as his former address, but it was impossible for the court below to serve the original copy of the order to dismiss the appeal of this case as the director’s unknown address, and as a result, the court below failed to serve the original copy of the order to dismiss the appeal of this case’s appeal of this case’s appeal of this case’s appeal of this case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s case’s case’s appeal of this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s appeal of 10.

Therefore, the reappeal of this case is unlawful and its defect cannot be corrected. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the reappeal of this case.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)