[판결경정][집31(2)민,62;공1983.6.1.(705),807]
1. Error due to the error of the party's request and the correction of the judgment
An error under Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act may be corrected if an error occurs not only in cases where such error occurred due to the fault of the court, but also in cases where a party’s claim is obviously erroneous. Therefore, the address of the party indicated in the judgment corresponding to the written complaint may also be corrected if there is
Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Order 65Ma1066 Dated December 23, 1965 81Ga6 Dated May 30, 1981
Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Other Party
Seoul Central District Court Order 82Ka1228 Dated February 3, 1983
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.
The grounds for special appeal by a special appellant are examined.
The error under Article 197 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act is interpreted to be able to correct if the error occurred not only due to the fault of the court but also even if there is a mistake in the party's claim. Thus, even if the error is indicated in the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 65Ma106, Dec. 23, 1965 and May 30, 1981) and it conforms to the plaintiff's written complaint, it can be corrected even if it conforms to the plaintiff's written complaint. According to the records of this case, although the plaintiff's address is stated in the judgment of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office (number 1 omitted), the location of the object indicated in the title section and the address of the plaintiff (the address indicated in the column of title) are stated in the above judgment as stated in the copy of the register of real estate which is the object of the lawsuit as stated in the above judgment, the above judgment of the court below (number 1 omitted), which affected the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 17 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, the order of the court below is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)