Appeal against the dismissal decision of a request for correction of judgment and its method;

Since the dismissal decision of the application for the correction of judgment is only permitted, the special appeal is required to be processed as a special appeal even if the party did not indicate it as a special appeal while filing an appeal against the dismissal decision, and the appellate court did not designate it as the Supreme Court.

Articles 197(3) and 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 71Ma382 dated July 21, 1971 66Ma579 dated July 26, 1966

Attorney Song-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Other than 1 et al.

Seoul Central District Court Order 81Ka50218 Decided January 14, 1982

The special appeal is dismissed.

According to the records, the Seoul High Court (referring to the Seoul High Court, hereinafter the same shall apply) filed an application for the correction of a judgment with respect to the case on the merits of this case by a special appellant on November 27, 1980. On January 14, 1982, the lower court rejected the above application, and the special appellant filed an appeal with the lower court on January 18, 1982, and the Seoul High Court, which received the record, dismissed the appeal on February 1 of the same year on the ground that the above appeal was unlawful.

As the decision of the court below which dismissed an application for correction of a judgment on the ground that it is groundless, it cannot be deemed that it dismissed an application for correction of the judgment, and it is interpreted that the appeal cannot be filed for objection under the interpretation of the main text of Article 197 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the decision of dismissal of an application for correction of judgment is limited to the special appeal stipulated in Article 420 of the same Act. Thus, even if the parties did not indicate the special appeal and the appellate court did not designate it as the Supreme Court, it is necessary to treat it as a special appeal and send the records to the Supreme Court.

However, in this case, the record shall be sent to the Seoul High Court and the same court's decision shall result in the decision of the non-authorized court. Thus, the appeal in this case shall be treated as a special appeal against the decision of the original court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 71Ma382, Jul. 21, 1971; Order 66Ma579, Jul. 26, 1966).

The correction of a judgment is a correction or supplement of a mistake or calculation in the expression of the judgment to the extent that it does not substantially alter the contents of the judgment, and according to the case records and the original judgment, it is evident that the court below, ex officio or upon request of the parties, ordered the special appellant, who is the other party to the special appellant, to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on sale on July 9, 197, 197, as to the share of 30 minutes and 27 shares in the real estate indicated in the original judgment, was accepted by the special appellant (Plaintiff) and sentenced to the judgment consistent with the purport of the claim. Thus, the court below dismissed the application for correction of the judgment of this case on the ground that there is no obvious error in the above judgment, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the correction of the judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)