The system of the correction of a judgment (see Article 211(1) of the Civil Procedure Act) where it is obvious that there was an error in wrong calculation, entry, or other similar errors in a judgment (see Article 211(1) of the Civil Procedure Act) is to be made in a case where, to the extent that the content of a judgment rendered once rendered, the court voluntarily corrected or supplements errors in the expression of the judgment to the extent that it does not substantially alter the content thereof, so as not to hinder the enforcement of so-called mining, such as compulsory execution, correction of family register or entry in registration. Any error that can be corrected thereby includes not only the case where the court was caused by the fault but also the case where the party’s fault occurred in the request. In addition, in making a decision of correction, the materials that were submitted after the decision of correction, etc., as well as the materials that were submitted after the decision of correction, etc., may be determined by taking into account such errors in the litigation economy where there is no particular disadvantage to the other party or the opportunity to dispute them (see, e.g

According to the records, the special appellant filed a lawsuit against the other party for damages claim against the Seoul Northern District Court 2010Kadan30215, which was rendered after the judgment of the court of first instance (the special appellant partially accepted a claim by the special appellant, and dismissed the counterclaim by the defendant), and the defendant's resident registration number is not indicated in the written judgment of first instance (the court of first instance). ② The defendant of the above case, who filed an appeal against the judgment of first instance, and withdrawn it, became final and conclusive as it became final and conclusive. The letter of withdrawal of appeal submitted by the above defendant was stated as "(resident registration number omitted)" and a copy of the same resident registration number is attached to the written withdrawal of appeal submitted by the above defendant. ③ The plaintiff filed an application for correction of the judgment of this case with the purport that the above resident registration number should be changed to the defendant's identification number in addition to the above resident registration number in the above judgment. On the other hand, the defendant's domicile in the written application for correction of the judgment of this case is stated as "Seoul Northernbuk-si (2 omitted)."

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court should examine whether the Defendant indicated in the above judgment and the other party to the instant application are the same, and if two persons are the same, it should allow the correction of the first instance judgment so as not to hinder compulsory execution. Therefore, the lower court’s dismissal of the instant application without doing so, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the correction of judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation of special appellant pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)