[결정경정신청기각결정][공1982.2.15.(674),168]
Whether the error of the telephone number at the time of filing an application for a claim attachment and assignment order that transferred the claim for the claim for the return of the facility cost of the subscribed telephone provisionally seized is the ground for rectification (affirmative)
In the application for the attachment and assignment order of the claim for the return of the installation cost for the provisional attachment, if the telephone number was erroneously stated in the application for the attachment and assignment order, it would constitute a ground for correction if the execution court issued the attachment and assignment order.
Article 197(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act
National Institute of Education for School Foundation
west-Nam
Korea
Seoul Central District Court Order 81Ka34983 Dated September 25, 1981
The original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.
We examine the grounds for special appeal.
Article 197 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the error occurred due to the fault of the court, or if there is an error in the party's request, it may be corrected. According to the records of this case, the decision of the provisional seizure order case of this case, "The provisional seizure claim of this case is stated as "the claim for return" that the provisional seizure claim of this case is stated as "the facility cost of the third party debtor (the Republic of Korea) while the debtor has temporarily installed 95-5797 telephone and kept it in the third party (the Republic of Korea). It is recognized that the provisional seizure claim of this case was executed lawfully after it was served on the third party debtor. The re-appellant applied for the seizure order of this case (81l6051,6052) from the above provisional seizure of this case (the claim and the assignment order of this case). The court below stated the above telephone number "95-579" as "776-9555", not "95" on the above provisional seizure of this case.
Therefore, since the telephone number of the attached list stated in the attachment and assignment order, which was transferred from provisional seizure of claims to the seizure and assignment order, is considered to be an obvious clerical error in the "95-57", the original decision rejecting the request for correction is unfair, and thus, it cannot be reversed.
Since the argument is reasonable, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court, which is the original judgment, and the opinions of all participating judges were delivered.
Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)