[판결경정][공1990.5.15.(872),937]
A. Whether it is an obvious error that does not specify the address of the party and that of other registry addresses in the judgment is the reason for the rectification of the judgment (negative)
B. Whether, in a case where the area of real estate is recorded differently from the entry in the land cadastre, it is obvious that the area of real estate is indicated as the entry in the land cadastre in the judgment, and whether it is a ground for final rectification
A. In the judgment ordering the implementation of the ownership transfer registration, it cannot be said that there is an obvious error in the judgment because the defendant's address is indicated as the obligor, and the address on other registers is not indicated.
B. If the area of the real estate is 00 square meters from the land cadastre and it is mistakenly stated 340 square meters from the land cadastre, then the judgment indicated the area of the real estate differently 430 square meters from the land cadastre and it cannot be said that there is an obvious error.
(b)Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act;
A. Supreme Court Order 86Da51 dated Apr. 30, 1986 (Gong1986,863) 87Da4 dated Feb. 26, 1987 (Gong1987,621) 87Da250 dated Oct. 28, 1987 (Gong1987,1783)
Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Msan District Court Decision 88Da1673 delivered on June 1, 1988
The special appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds for special appeal.
In this case, there is no obvious error in the judgment because the defendant's address is indicated in the name of the obligor and the address on other registers is not specified in the decision, and as in this case, if the area of the real estate in question is 0 square meters above 430 square meters above that on the register but is stated differently 340 square meters from that on the register, there is no obvious error in the decision in this case because the area of the real estate in question is 430 square meters above that on the register, the area of the real estate in question is 430 square meters different from that on the register.
In the end, the court below's dismissal of the application for the correction of the judgment in this case is justified, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit.
Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)