Whether an error caused by a mistake in a party’s claim that erroneously stated the Defendant’s name in the complaint is subject to a correction of judgment or determination (affirmative)

The error stipulated in Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act includes not only the error caused by the fault of the court but also the error caused by the party’s fault. Thus, if the party’s name is mistakenly indicated in the complaint as “non-party 1”, which is the name used at the time of entering into a lease contract, the defendant’s name indicated in the judgment should be corrected to correct name.

Article 197 of the Civil Procedure Act

Special Appellants

Seoul District Court Order 86Ka10187 Dated November 25, 1986

The original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds for special appeal are examined.

The errors stipulated in Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act include not only cases where the error occurred due to the fault of the court, but also cases where the fault occurred due to the fault of the party. According to the records and the reasons for the application for the correction of the judgment by special appellant, Nonparty 1’s name indicated in the judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 85Gahap923 delivered on November 28, 1985) is the clerical error of ○○○○○, and this is also the fact that the name of Nonparty 1 was used by himself while entering into a lease contract with the person of Nonparty 2 on his family register, resident registration, and building register, even though the right name was ○○○○○○, and the name of Nonparty 1 was indicated as Nonparty 1 while entering into the lease contract with the person of Nonparty 2. Thus, the application of this case should be accepted to change the defendant’s name indicated in the judgment by correct correction.

In light of the records, the court below did not examine whether the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 alleged by the special appellant are the same person or are different persons, and dismissed the application. Thus, the court below's order erred by misapprehending the legal principles on errors under Article 197 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)