[1] Whether the specific degree of the text of the judgment and the order of the judgment are specified is an ex officio examination (affirmative)

[2] Where the purport of the claim is not specified, measures to be taken by the court

[1] Articles 134 and 208 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 249 and 254 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Nu251 Decided March 8, 1983 (Gong1983, 667) (Gong2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da53785 Decided November 12, 2009 (Gong2010Da94625 Decided February 10, 201)

Plaintiff

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 2, 2012

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2076375 decided May 18, 2017

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. The text of the judgment must be clear and its contents should be specified as the text itself. Therefore, the order must be clearly specified to the extent that it is clearly indicated and its execution is not doubtful to the extent that it is possible to see what extent the parties’ claims are accepted and rejected. Whether the text of the judgment is specified or not is ex officio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu251, Mar. 8, 1983; 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006).

Meanwhile, in civil procedure, the purport of the claim must be clearly identified so that its content and scope can be clearly identified, and whether it is specified is also an ex officio investigation. Therefore, where the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall ex officio order the correction regardless of whether or not the defendant raises an objection, and shall dismiss the lawsuit if the defendant does not comply therewith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da53785, Nov. 12, 2009; 2010Da94625, Feb. 10, 201).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court understood that, “the Defendant shall accept the Plaintiff’s audit each month until the completion of liquidation work” as stated in paragraph (1) of the Plaintiff’s claim, and that the part of the judgment of the first instance that “the Defendant shall accept the Plaintiff’s supervision (the date of completion of liquidation work or the date of loss of the Plaintiff’s audit status) until the first arrival is justifiable,” and that the Defendant dismissed the Defendant’s appeal

However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the part seeking the acceptance of an audit among the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim does not specify the timing, object, and method of the audit. Moreover, the order of the first instance judgment does not specify the subject and method of the audit, and there is no objective clear standard as to the implementation method of “acceptance of an audit,” and it is also unclear whether the order is issued either to order the omission, such as prohibition of interference with the Plaintiff’s duties, or to order the act of providing documents necessary for the audit or inspection. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the content of the obligation to accept an audit to be performed by the Defendant is objectively specified, and there is room for dispute

Therefore, the part concerning the application for acceptance of audit among the judgment of the court of first instance is unlawful because it does not have clarity as the judgment order.

Therefore, the lower court should order the Plaintiff to specifically specify the purport of the part demanding the audit and inspection, and, if the Plaintiff fails to comply therewith, ex officio revoke the part demanding the audit and inspection of the first instance judgment and dismissed the lawsuit in that part. Nevertheless, the lower court did not take such measures and dismissed the Defendant’s appeal. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purport of the claim and specification of the text of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)