Whether the address of the party and the address in other registry are grounds for adjudication or rectification.

According to Article 197 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the correction of a judgment is made where there is an obvious error in a miscalculation, clerical error, or any other similar error in the judgment. However, in the case of a judgment ordering the defendant to perform the registration of transfer of ownership, it cannot be deemed that there is an obvious error in the judgment because the defendant's address, who is the obligor, is different from the address on the

Article 197 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 83Hun-Ga6 Dated April 19, 1983

Special Appellants

Gwangju District Court Order 15 March 15, 1986, 86Ka2406

The special appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds for special appeal.

According to Article 197 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a correction of the judgment is made in cases where there is an obvious error in a miscalculation, clerical error, or any other similar error in the judgment, and in this case, in the judgment ordering the defendant to perform the registration of transfer of ownership, the defendant's address, who is the obligor, is not different from that on the registry, and thus, cannot be deemed to have so-called an obvious error in the judgment because the defendant's address, which is the obligor, did not separately indicate the address on the registry, is different from that on the registry (see Supreme Court Order 19 April 19, 1983; Supreme Court Order 83Do66, Apr. 19, 1983). Ultimately

Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)