Applicant 1 and one other (Law Firm Open, Attorney Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Respondent

Cheongju District Court Order 2010Kaga213 dated November 8, 2010

1. The appeal of this case is dismissed.

2. In the decision of the first instance court, the portion owned by the plaintiff 1: (C) part (number 1 omitted), among the land in the attached Form 3's size, f', g', g', g', h', d', d'e', d'e', part (E) which connects each point of the same map among the land (number 1 omitted), part (E) which connects the same map's size, b', c', d', d', g', d'e', d'e', d'e', d'e', 58 square meters in sequence among the land (number 1 omitted), part (F), 76 square meters in the same map's size, b', g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., 1000 square meters in sequence, g.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts are substantiated.

(a) Before March 19, 207, the Cheongju District Court Assistance 2005 Ma7460 m205 m205 m260 m206 m2006 m25 m200 m200 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m2, among the other party (the other party) and the appellant, with respect to (number 1 omitted), with respect to (number 1 omitted), with respect to the area of 750 m2 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m200 m200 m200 m27 m20 m27 m20 m27 m20 m27 m20 m27 m20 m20 m27 m395 m2

B. On March 29, 2007, the above court replaced the annexed drawing 1 of the instant protocol with the annexed drawing 2 (no big difference following the change of drawings, and the area owned by the appellant and the appellant was adjusted). Of the land (number 2 omitted), part (C) in the ship connecting each point of the (number 2 omitted) of the annexed drawing 2 marks Ga, Na, Da, Ra, Ma, Ga, and Ga among the land owned by the other party (number 2 omitted) and 193 square meters (the location is 201.16 square meters and is 193 square meters, only if the location is as it is, the area is 201.16 square meters and is 193 square meters), among the land (number 2 omitted), the part owned by the appellant is (number 1 omitted), the same drawing 1 of the land among the (number 2 omitted), and the part (D) part 6395 square meters and 295 square meters is 29.65 square meters as it is as it is.3695 square meters.265 square meters.

C. In order for the other party to complete partition of co-owned property pursuant to the instant protocol, the voice group filed an application for partition of co-owned property with the competent authority, but the voice group rejected acceptance on the ground that it did not constitute the surveying result by the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation attached to the instant protocol No. 2A.

D. Accordingly, the other party requested a cadastral status survey to the voice branch of the Korea Cadastral Corporation and the Cheongbukdo Headquarters with the same content as that of the annexed drawing No. 2, and the annexed drawing No. 3 was prepared as the result map.

E. Upon receipt of an application from the other party for the revision of the instant protocol on September 1, 2010 when the other party submitted an annex No. 3 to the above court. On November 8, 201 of the same year, the above court replaced the drawing of the instant protocol with the annex No. 3. The portion owned by the other party is (number No. 2 omitted) part (C) which connects each point of the size No. 3 indicated in the annex No. 3 M, f', g', g', h', d'e', d'e', d'e', d'e', 1 omitted), among the land (number No. 1 omitted), part of the same map out of the land (E), 58§³, b's number No. 1 omitted, b', kn', k, k, g., g., g., 2'e to the other party's order, 200 m.

2. Summary of and judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal

The appellant asserts that the decision of this case is unfair and revoked because the content of the decision of this case was modified arbitrarily, unlike the other party and appellant, and its size and boundary was substantially modified. The decision of the first instance court is based on the mediation protocol of this case which is void automatically.

B. Determination

The purpose of the correction of the protocol is to make it clear that there is an obvious error in the miscalculation, clerical error, or any other similar error in the protocol, to the extent that it does not actually alter the content of the protocol, the court itself correct or supplement by its decision so that it does not interfere with the execution of so-called mining, such as compulsory execution, correction of family register, or entry of registration (see Supreme Court Order 2004Ma918, Feb. 14, 2006, etc.).

In light of the fact that the contents of the conciliation protocol of this case are identical to those of the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation for the registration of partition of co-owned property, and the contents are identical to those of the annexed drawing 2, and there is no disadvantage to the appellant, and that the contents of the conciliation protocol of this case are not modified, and that if the replacement is not permitted, the execution of the conciliation protocol of this case is impossible, and the same litigation shall be repeated, and thus, the execution of the conciliation protocol of this case is repeated, etc., it is contrary to the litigation economy. In addition, it is allowed to replace the annexed drawing 2 with the annexed drawing 3, and accordingly correct the indication of the part owned by the other party and the appellant, because it constitutes a mistake similar to the error

On the other hand, it is clear that the part (A), (B) part (E), (C), part (C) part (F), part (A), (E), part (B), and (F) part (D) are clerical errors in the decision of this case. The reason for appeal by the appellant is to criticize the decision of the first instance on the ground of an obvious clerical error in the decision of this case, or to criticize the decision of this case on the ground that it cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal against the decision of this case, and there is no other error in the decision of the first instance.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case by the appellant is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition by the decision of the first instance court to correct the obvious clerical error.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Since the alphaba sign on the part on the ship in the instant decision is apparent in the record, it was immediately explained.