1. The appeal of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

purport, purport, and.

1. Although the first instance court had been on three occasions the date of pleading, the part of the claim in the lawsuit in this case cannot be deemed to have specified the cause of the claim, and the part of the claim for the delivery of goods and the obligation of correction, etc. cannot be deemed to have been specified as the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim are not clear.

“For reasons, the instant lawsuit was dismissed on the ground that it was an inappropriate lawsuit and thus cannot be corrected.

2. According to the records of this case, the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the judgment of the court of first instance and submitted a petition of appeal. However, as the judgment of the court of first instance properly states, defects such as the uncertainty of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim have not been corrected

In addition, since the purport of appeal and guidance for appeal stated in a petition of appeal and other written documents submitted by the plaintiff are unclear, the scope of appeal against the judgment of the first instance and the subject matter of appeal by the appellate court cannot be specified.

Even if the pleading is in progress, there is no room for an appellate court to revoke the judgment of the first instance court, and to grant a legal remedy that the plaintiff wants by way of having the appellate court render a judgment on the merits by itself or remanding the case to the first instance court.

Nevertheless, it is not desirable in terms of the economy of litigation if a final judgment on appeal should be made through the oral proceedings, and it may result in the appellant's disadvantage due to the increase in litigation costs, etc.

Furthermore, in the event that the defect is not corrected due to an illegal lawsuit, the court may dismiss the lawsuit without holding any pleadings, taking into account the aforementioned aspects of the litigation economy and the protection of the interests of the parties (Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, in the appellate procedure of the said judgment, even if the defects, which are the grounds for the judgment of the non-regulative retirement