[2] The measures to be taken by the court in a case where the plaintiff filed an application for correction of the above service place to the present domicile of the defendant after the judgment was rendered with only the corrected service place without the defendant's domicile address omitted

[2] In a case where the plaintiff filed an application for correction of a judgment to change the above service place to the present domicile of the defendant after the judgment was rendered with the omission of the defendant's resident registration address and only the corrected service place was recorded, the court shall examine whether the defendant and the nominal owner under the resident registration card are the same person under the judgment, and if the two are the same person, the court shall allow the correction of judgment

According to the records, when filing a loan claim case with Suwon District Court 99Gapo691, the special appellant stated the defendant's address in the complaint as ○○ apartment (Dong, Dong, Dong 1 omitted), but the lawsuit document was unable to be served, the special appellant filed a revised report on the service place (Dong, Dong 2 omitted) at ○○ apartment (Dong, Dong 2 omitted) at ○○ apartment (Dong, Dong 2 omitted) at ○○, which was the defendant's domicile on the resident registration card, and thereafter, the above defendant's resident registration address was omitted and only the corrected service place was stated. Accordingly, the plaintiff's request for correction of the judgment at the court below which changed the above service place to ○○ apartment (Dong, Dong 3 omitted) at ○○ apartment (Dong, Dong 3 omitted) at the present domicile of the defendant as of the above defendant's resident registration card at the court below can be recognized as dismissing the application for correction of the judgment without any particular examination.

However, the purport of the court’s correction of the judgment, where it is obvious that there is a miscalculation, clerical error, or other similar error, is that the court itself does not interfere with the execution of so-called mining, such as compulsory execution, correction of family register, or registration, by correcting or supplementing by itself, to the extent that the court does not substantially alter the content of the judgment once it was pronounced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 92Da20, Sept. 15, 1992; Order 95Ma528, Mar. 12, 196).

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on whether the defendant and the defendant under the resident registration card of this case are the same person, and if both parties were to have permitted the correction of judgment, so that compulsory execution would not be impeded, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the correction of judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for special appeal as to this point has 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.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)