B. In a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party, whether it constitutes a ground for rectification of judgment where the address of the party is different from that on the registry (negative)

C. Whether an erroneous representation of the land area is subject to a judgment and rectification (affirmative)

B. In a case where the address of a party to a lawsuit is different from that on the registry, it cannot be deemed that there is an obvious error in the judgment because the address on the registry is not separately stated in the registry, and thus, an application for the correction of judgment is not permissible.

C. The erroneous indication of land size is merely an error of expression similar to a miscalculation, clerical error, and thus is subject to a correction of judgment.

1. According to the interpretation of the main text of Article 197(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, a complaint may not be filed against a decision dismissing a request for correction of judgment without grounds, and thus, special appeal under Article 420 of the same Act may be permitted. Thus, the appeal of this case, which does not state that the request is a special appeal, shall be treated as a special appeal.

2. As stipulated in Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if it is evident that there is an error in miscalculation, clerical error, or any other similar error in the judgment, the court may make a decision to correct the judgment, and such error can be corrected if it is evident that there is an error not only caused by the fault of the court, but also if there was a mistake in the party’s claim, and even if there is an error in the party’s claim, it is interpreted that such error can be corrected if it conforms to the plaintiff’s written complaint (see, e.g., notification of March 24, 1983, and 83.8,). However, such error is obvious in the case where it is obvious that there is an error. In the case of this case, the part where the request for a change is made by separately stating the registry address in each address of Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 as the third party’s lawsuit against the above Defendants, as in the case of this case, because the address of the above Defendants, who is the obligor, did not separately indicate the address on the registry address on the register, it cannot be deemed so-called.

On the other hand, among the indications of the object of the judgment, it is clear that the novel is an erroneous representation of the 3,157 square meters at the 3,187 square meters (No. 1 omitted) and the 2,031 square meters (No. 696 square meters) above (No. 1 omitted) at the 3,157 square meters (No. 955 square meters) and (No. 2,301 square meters (No. 696 square meters) prior to the above (No. 1 omitted), among the indications of the object of the judgment, the erroneous representation of the indication of the area of the land is merely an error of the expression similar to the above misunderstanding and clerical error (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 64Da815, Nov. 24, 1964).

Therefore, in the case of the latter, it is necessary to allow the application for correction of the special appellant, and even if so, the order of the court below that dismissed the entire application of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act or failing to exhaust all deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)