[2] The case holding that the court of first instance should transfer the application to the appellate court, which is the competent court, not to dismiss the application, on the ground that the correction of the judgment does not request the correction of the entries in the purport of the claim in the judgment of dismissal of the first instance court which has already become invalid due to the cancellation of the appellate court, but rather the correction of the entries in the purport of the claim in the judgment of dismissal of the

[2] The case holding that the court of first instance should transfer the application to the appellate court, which is the competent court, instead of dismissing the application, since it should not dismiss the application, since it should correct the description of the claim in the first instance court's dismissal decision, which already became invalid due to the cancellation of the application, and it should be interpreted as changing the description of the land, which is the object of lawsuit as stated in the order of the appellate court'

2. Generally, the interpretation of procedural acts cannot be interpreted in conflict with or contradictory to the contents indicated and stated in accordance with the indication principle and external appearance principle. However, the interpretation of procedural acts may lead to unfair consequences contrary to the purpose of the litigation system and the litigation economy for the remedy of the rights of the parties in a uniform and formal interpretation of the indicated fishing gear. As such, it is necessary to consider the parties' entire arguments concerning procedural acts and interpret procedural acts objectively and rationally in consideration of the parties' intent to conduct such procedural acts (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Meu1981, Feb. 28, 1984).

However, according to the records, the special appellant filed a lawsuit against the non-party for the registration of transfer of land ownership 97Da4302 on May 4, 1999, but all of his claim was dismissed. However, the appellate court, which is the appellate court, rendered a judgment in favor of the whole on July 13, 200, with the cancellation of the judgment of the first instance on July 13, 2000. The above appellate court's judgment became final and conclusive by the final judgment of the Supreme Court on December 27, 2000Da43963, which became final and conclusive after the final judgment became final and conclusive, on the ground that the land which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, was already divided into the land before the closing of argument, and the appellate court should have stated the purport of the above appellate court's request for correction of the judgment in Busan High Court's original District Court's original judgment as stated in the above application of this case's special appellant's claim for the registration of transfer of land ownership 97Ga4302, which is different from the above judgment's reasoning.

Nevertheless, the court below's dismissal of the application of this case by a special appellant as above does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interpretation of procedural acts and the jurisdiction of the application case for the correction of judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground for special appeal as to this point is with merit.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be transferred to Busan High Court, which is the competent court, by applying Articles 395 and 389 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)