A. In a case where the re-appeal period has expired due to service by public notice as to the address as indicated in the petition of appeal was impossible, whether the re-appellant was due to a cause not attributable to the re-appellant (negative)

B. Whether the correction of address is effective in a case where the place of service is additionally stated in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted after the dismissal of appeal (negative)

(a)When the original judgment was served to the address indicated in the petition of appeal but it became impossible for the original court to serve as a director due to unknown reasons, the presiding judge of the original judgment ordering service by public notice ex officio and served on the re-appellant by public notice, even though the re-appellant could not comply with the re-appeal period, which is a peremptory period, due to the relationship served by public notice by public notice, even though the re-appellant was unable to

B. When the appellant submits a written reason of appeal after the dismissal decision of the original court, the service place is additionally stated in the indication of the appellant, but it cannot be said that the correction of address will take effect. Thus, the service order by public notice by the presiding judge of the original court which subsequently made cannot be deemed unlawful.

(a) Articles 160(b) and 413(1), 367, and 371 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Order 82Ma587 dated April 8, 1964 (Gong1982,44) dated August 31, 1982

Lee Jae-Nam et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 90Ra48 dated February 8, 1990

The reappeal shall be dismissed.

In light of the record as to the legitimacy of the reappeal of this case due to the late completion, since the re-appellant served the address of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City as 23-5, Guro-dong, and the court below served the order of the court below at that address, but it was impossible to serve the order of the court below due to the director's unknownness, the presiding judge ordered service by public notice ex officio and served the re-appellant through service by public notice. Thus, even if the re-appellant was unable to comply with the re-appeal period due to the relation delivered by the court below by service by public notice, which was served by service by public notice, it cannot be said that the re-appellant was due to a cause not attributable to the re-appellant (see Supreme Court Order 64Ma17

When submitting the written reason of appeal on February 19, 1990, which was after the court below decided to dismiss the appeal, the re-appellant can be recognized as having additionally added the service place of 98-8 Goro-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul to the service place of 508, Guro-gu, Seoul to the service place of 98-8, but it cannot be said that the order of service by public notice issued by the presiding judge of the court below as of February 22, 199 cannot be deemed as unlawful, and even if the above domestic service by public notice is defective, the validity of service by public

In the end, the petition for subsequent completion of the instant case is without merit, and it cannot be avoided that the reappeal of this case is unlawful, and it cannot be corrected. Therefore, the reappeal of this case is dismissed without any judgment on the grounds of reappeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)