[2] The case holding that in a case where the appellate court's decision on divorce, etc. in which the appeal of the appellant dismissed the remaining appeal, and the reasons are omitted as to the designation of a person with parental authority, a person with parental authority, and a child support claim, the correction of the judgment adding the omitted part is merely permissible to correct or supplement, by decision, the error in the expression or similar error within the extent that it does not substantially alter the contents

A correction of a judgment made when it is evident that there was an error of wrong calculation, entry, or other similar errors in a judgment has been made, the purport is to correct or supplement the error of entry, calculation, or other similar errors by the court itself to the extent that it does not substantially alter the content of the judgment rendered, so that it does not interfere with the execution of so-called mining, such as compulsory execution, correction of family register or entry in registration (see Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1090, Dec. 11, 2008, etc.).

According to the records, ① the other party filed a lawsuit against the Re-Appellant for divorce, consolation money, division of property, designation of person with parental authority and custody over the principal of the case, and child support, and dismissal of the appeal against the remaining part of consolation money. ② The Re-Appellant filed an appeal against the remaining part of the case except consolation money. The court below newly stated the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the remaining part of the claim, and accepted the reasons of the judgment, while the judgment of the court of first instance, the other party accepted the divorce claim without mentioning the designation of person with parental authority and custody over the principal of the case, child support, and child support claim. The other party's claim for division of property is dismissed. The other party's claim for division of property is partially accepted by the Re-Appellant's appeal and changed it to 66,648,600 won and damages for delay. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance changed to the amount recognized by the court of first instance and the re-appellant's total expenses are to be borne by the other party and the re-appellant.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below added the order and reasons for the judgment that the remaining appeal of the re-appellant is dismissed through the decision of the court below, and added a reference to the designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, and the claim for child support to the reasoning of the judgment is merely correction or supplement by decision to the extent that the contents of the judgment are not substantially modified. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the correction of the judgment, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the correction of the judgment, which affected the judgment

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)