[판결경정][공1992.5.1.(919),1267]
A. The party’s negligence in error and whether the judgment was corrected (affirmative)
B. Whether a judgment is rendered in accordance with the purport of the claim stated erroneously in the complaint, and whether it can be deemed that there is an obvious error in the judgment where the error is not clear even if it is based on the litigation materials (negative)
A. An error under Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act may be corrected if it is obvious that the error is obvious, as well as where the error occurred due to the court’s negligence.
B. Although the plaintiffs' legal representative erroneously stated in the complaint the purport of the claim, it was not followed by the time the argument is closed at the trial court, the court also rendered a judgment as stated in the complaint. Even if it is based on the data expressed in the whole process of the lawsuit, if the error is not clear, it cannot be deemed that there is an obvious error in the so-called
(a)Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act;
A. Supreme Court Order 86Da160 dated Jan. 28, 1987 (Gong1987,619) dated Sep. 5, 1988 (Gong1988,1258) dated Jan. 12, 1990 (Gong1990,938) dated Dec. 26, 1984; Supreme Court Order 84Da666 dated Dec. 26, 1984 (Gong1985,349)
Special Appellant 1 et al.
Busan District Court Order 91Ka36309 Dated December 16, 1991
The special appeal is dismissed.
The grounds for special appeal are examined.
Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the error may be corrected if it is obvious that it has been caused not only by the fault of the court but also by the party’s negligence. However, as in this case, the plaintiffs’ legal representative did not take the procedure of modification in the complaint, but also did not go through the procedure of modification until the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, and the court rendered a judgment as stated in the complaint. Even if it is based on the materials in the whole process of the lawsuit, if the error is unclear, it cannot be deemed that there is an obvious error in the so-called judgment (see Supreme Court Order 84Da66, Dec. 26, 1984).
In the end, the decision of the court below that dismissed the application for correction of this case is just and it cannot be viewed that there is an illegal cause under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act in the order of the court below. Therefore, the argument is without merit
Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)