[1] The intent of correction and correction of the mediation protocol

[2] In a case where Gap filed a claim for the purchase price against Eul, and Gap filed an application for correction to the effect that Eul added his/her current resident registration address to his/her current resident registration address under the conciliation protocol, the case holding that the order of the court below that dismissed the application for correction without a hearing, even though the same person is allowed to revise the conciliation protocol and if both parties are the same person, it should not impede compulsory execution by examining whether Eul and Eul are the same person in the resident registration card attached to the written application for correction under the conciliation protocol

[1] Articles 211 and 220 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 29 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act / [2] Articles 211, 220, and 449(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 29 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 2001Da112 dated December 4, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 333)

Special Appellants

Other Party

Seoul Southern District Court Order 2011Kaga933 dated June 14, 2011

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court.

The grounds of special appeal are examined.

1. The purport of the court’s correction of the judgment where it is obvious that there is an error in miscalculation, clerical error, or any other similar error in the judgment, is that the court itself does not interfere with the enforcement of so-called mining, such as compulsory execution, correction of family register, or recording of registration, by correcting or supplementing by itself, to the extent that the court does not substantially alter the content of the judgment once it was pronounced. This also applies to the correction of the protocol of mediation (see Supreme Court Order 2001Da112, Dec. 4, 2001).

2. According to the records, the special appellant filed a lawsuit against the other party for the purchase-price claim against Seoul Southern District Court 2010 Ghana43137, and the conciliation was concluded on May 11, 2010 during the process of the lawsuit, and the other party’s address was stated in the protocol of mediation as “Yanyang-dong 3 Dong-dong 3 during Yangyang-si,” and the special appellant filed a request for correction to the effect that the other party’s address under the above protocol of mediation (2 omitted) additional ○○ Dong-dong 202, which is the current resident registration address under the above protocol, is changed to the other party’s domicile under the above protocol of mediation. However, the court below dismissed the other party’s application without any deliberation as to whether the other party is the same person with the same person as the other party’s address under ○○ Dong-dong 202, which is attached to the above protocol of mediation.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below should have deliberated whether the other party under the above protocol and the other party under the above resident registration card are the same, and if both parties are the same, the court below should have allowed the correction of the protocol so that compulsory execution would not be impeded. The court below's dismissal of the application for correction of this case without reaching this point by infringing upon the right of special appellant subject to a fair trial in accordance with legitimate procedures, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The argument of special appellant pointing

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)