The stamp or amendment by public notice, the order to dismiss the petition of appeal, and the subsequent completion of the immediate appeal thereon;

The court below ordered the re-appellant to correct the shortage due to the domicile of the representative of the re-appellant stated in the petition of appeal, but when this order was impossible to serve, it did not look at whether the above representative resides in his domicile and served the order to dismiss the petition in the same manner, and then served the order to dismiss the petition of appeal in the same manner, and later, if the above representative knew this fact and submitted the petition of appeal against the order to dismiss the petition of appeal, and if it added the deficiency as a result of the reasons for non-liability, the re-appellant's failure to observe the above period of acknowledgement, correction, and the period of immediate appeal. Therefore, the immediate appeal by the re

Articles 160 and 414 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 67Ma1324 Decided January 31, 1968

Attorney Kim Jong-chul, et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Order 80Na229 dated March 20, 1980

The order shall be revoked.

The re-appellant's main case is the re-appellant's re-appeal.

According to the records, the court below ordered correction as to whether the representative's address is insufficient to attach to the appeal petition, but the court below ordered correction to serve public notice on March 4, 1980 on the ground that such order was not served on the representative's domicile at the address of the above re-appellant's company, and it is clear that the above appeal petition was dismissed as of March 26, 1980 on the ground that there was no correction within the correction period based on service notice, and the above order was served by public notice at the high area of the same dismissal order. However, according to the records, the above order of correction to be served by mail on the representative's address stated in the above appeal petition was rejected [investigation], and the above order of correction to be served by mail at the address of the above representative as of April 8, 1980 and the representative of the re-appellant's company was rejected as of April 14, 1980, and the above order of correction to be served on the above re-appellant's domicile was rejected as of the above 1-appellant's address.

Therefore, the cancellation of the original order is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)