As a result of erroneous service served on a person who is not entitled to receive a payment of the stamp correction order, whether the petition of appeal has been dismissed or not;

Even if the order of stamp correction was erroneously served on a person who is not entitled to receive the order of stamp correction and the appellant was not aware of whether the order of stamp correction was issued, such a ground for rejection of the appeal was not a ground for quasi-examination under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 431 of the same Act, and otherwise does not constitute a ground for quasi-examination under Article 422 (1) of the same Act.

Articles 431 and 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

School Foundation Hamnam Private Teaching Institutes

Domin Senior Civil Aviation Board

Supreme Court Order 30Da3143, 3144 Decided January 10, 1981

The quasi-appeal is dismissed.

The quasi-examination of the quasi-examination applicant shall be examined.

The gist of this quasi-appeal is that the claimant was ordered to correct the final appeal from the final appeal case of 80Da3143, 3144 to December 29, 1980, on the ground that he did not correct the final appeal within the prescribed period even though he was ordered by the presiding judge to correct the final appeal. The above order to correct the final appeal was issued as of January 10, 1981. The above order to correct the final appeal was issued as of January 10, 1981, and the non-party Kim Young-young, a teacher of the applicant's commercial transfer school, who was not a member of the claimant's office, was notified of the erroneous decision without any authority, and the appellant was ordered to dismiss the final appeal without knowing whether the above order to correct the final appeal was issued. Therefore, the above order to correct the final appeal order under the premise that the above order to correct the final appeal was duly served to a person without the authority to receive the above final appeal. Therefore, the above order to correct the final appeal order has reached

On the other hand, even if the above order to correct recognition was served on a person who is not entitled to receive the above order, as alleged above by the claimant, such reason does not constitute a ground for quasi-examination under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis by Article 431 of the same Act, "if there is a defect in the authority of legal representation, the authority of attorney, or the authority of attorney necessary for conducting procedural acts," and it does not constitute a ground for quasi-examination under Article 422 (1) of the same Act.

Therefore, the claim for review on the premise that there is a ground for quasi-examination is clearly groundless in its own assertion, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)