(a) The case where it is deemed that the order to dismiss the petition of appeal contains the case number and case name which are entirely unrelated to the appeal case constitutes an obvious clerical error which is subject to the decision of correction;

B. The meaning of "reasonable period" under Article 371 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is a deadline for ordering the correction of address, and whether the measures dismissed by the presiding judge on the ground that no correction has been made within such period after the presiding judge orders the correction of address without giving a reasonable period (negative)

(c) The case holding that the five-day period granted by the presiding judge when issuing an order to correct the address due to the unknown address of the director is insufficient in light of the circumstances where the address of the other party was not known of the original address of the other party, and the address of the other party was located far away from his/her address;

A. The case holding that the decision of the court below to dismiss the petition of appeal cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that it is reasonable to regard the case as an obvious clerical error in the "91Na3981 Cancellation of Ownership Registration" where the court below stated "91Na401 Building Name" which appears to be irrelevant to the appeal case at all.

B. According to Article 371(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, when it is impossible to serve a duplicate of the petition of appeal, the presiding judge of the appellate court shall order the appellant to correct the defects within a reasonable period fixed by him/her, and if the defects are not corrected, the presiding judge of the appellate court shall order the appellant to dismiss the petition of appeal. Here, “reasonable period” means that the appellant knows the other party’s address and revises the other party’s address, or investigates the other party’s address and examines the other party’s address, but it is impossible to know, and thus, the appellate court’s order to correct the address without a reasonable period and to dismiss the petition of appeal is unlawful.

C. The case holding that in light of the circumstances where an appellant ordered correction of address due to unknown directors cannot be deemed as having known of the original other party’s address as the defendant, and the other party’s address stated in the written complaint is located far away from the address of the appellant, there is a lack of a period of up to five days given by the presiding judge while issuing an order to correct address, on the ground that it requires considerable time for appellant to find out the other party’s place of directors.

(a) Article 197 (Article 210)/B of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 371 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Order 4293Du173 Dated July 23, 1960

Appellant 1 and 1 other Re-Appellants et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants-appellee

Msan District Court 91Na3981 dated September 24, 1991 (Seoul 401)

Msan District Court Order 91Na3981 Dated September 30, 1991

The reappeal against the order of the court below is dismissed.

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Masan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Examining records:

A. On July 22, 191, 191, the plaintiff non-party 1 (hereinafter "the plaintiff"), who was an attorney-at-law, appointed non-party 2 as the legal representative, filed a lawsuit claiming cancellation of ownership transfer registration with the defendant, and won a favorable judgment on July 22, 1991. The plaintiff's address was stated in the complaint of the court of first instance in Busan ( Address 1 omitted) and entered the plaintiff's address in the plaintiff's address in Busan-gu.

B. The Re-Appellant filed an appeal against this and entered the address above in the petition of appeal as the Plaintiff’s address, and the original court received it as 91Na3981 and sent it to the Plaintiff for the reason that the duplicate of the petition of appeal sent to the Plaintiff was impossible to serve on the Plaintiff.

C. Accordingly, the presiding judge of the court below ordered the re-appellant to correct the case in 91Na3981, 1, 1, 1 and 1 within five days from the date on which the order of the plaintiff's address was served, and this order of correction was served to the Re-Appellant on September 14, 191; and

D. The Re-Appellant appointed a lawyer to be the attorney and received the power of attorney from the court below on September 19, 191. The presiding judge of the court below ordered the court below to dismiss the petition of appeal of this case by indicating the case number and name as "91Na401 Building Number" on September 24, 1991. This order was served on the above attorney's lectures on September 25, 1991.

E. After that, the court below issued the order of the court below to correct the case number and case name of the above rejection order as "91Na3981 Cancellation of Ownership Registration", and on the same day, the plaintiff's address was corrected as Guro-gu Seoul ( Address 2 omitted) and the correction of address in the above attorney's name was received.

2. As to the ground for reappeal against the decision of correction by the court below

According to the records, the case of the name of building 91Na401 by the court below seems to be a case unrelated to the above case. Thus, if the circumstances in which the court below ordered the dismissal of a petition of appeal are the same as above, it is reasonable to regard the case number and name "91Na401" as an obvious clerical error in "91Na3981," and therefore, the decision of the court below's correction is not unlawful, and there is no reason to discuss this part.

3. As to the ground of reappeal against the order to dismiss the petition of appeal by the court below

A. According to Article 371 (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, when it is impossible to serve a duplicate of the petition of appeal, the presiding judge of the appellate court shall order the appellant to correct the defects within a reasonable period fixed, and when the appellant fails to correct the defects, the presiding judge of the appellate court shall order the appellant to dismiss the petition of appeal. Here, the term "reasonable period" refers to the appropriate and reasonable period for filing an application for service by public notice, as the appellant knows the other party's address and revises the other party's address, or was investigated and examined the other party's address, but it is impossible to know the other party's address, and thus, the appellate court's presiding judge order the correction of address and the rejection of the petition of appeal even though the reasonable period for correction has not elapsed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 4293Du173, Jul. 23,

B. When the presiding judge issues an order for correction, he/she shall make easy and specific correction period according to the degree of difficulty. According to the above, the re-appellant cannot be deemed the defendant in the main case as having known the original address of the plaintiff, and the address of the plaintiff in the main case is located far away from the address of the re-appellant as Busan, and in light of these circumstances, the re-appellant requires considerable time to find out the place of the plaintiff's director, and there is no shortage of time for five days.

C. Meanwhile, on September 14, 1991, when the Re-Appellant served the original copy of the order to rectify address, it is deemed that the Re-Appellant was a holiday from September 21 to 23, 1991, and it is apparent that the Re-Appellant was an official holiday. Thus, the period during which the Re-Appellant was able to investigate the Plaintiff’s address between the directors even when he was issued the order to dismiss the petition of appeal by the lower court is not more than five days from September 16 to 20.

D. If so, the presiding judge of the court below ordered the Re-Appellant to correct the address without fixing the "reasonable period" necessary to correct the address, and the "reasonable period" has not elapsed, but the petition of appeal was dismissed, and thus, it is unlawful. The arguments pointing this out are with merit.

4. Therefore, the reappeal against the decision of dismissal by the lower court is dismissed, and the order to dismiss the petition of appeal is reversed and remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)