[1] The purpose of the judgment revision system

[2] The case holding that the court below's dismissal of the defendant's application for correction of the defendant's indication under the protocol of conciliation erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the adjustment

[1] The correction of the judgment where it is obvious that there is an error in miscalculation, clerical error, or other similar mistake in the judgment, is the purpose of the correction of the judgment, to the extent that the court does not actually alter the contents of the judgment, to the extent that the correction does not interfere with the execution of so-called mining, such as compulsory execution, correction of family register or recording of registration, etc. by itself by correcting or supplementing the judgment, which is the same as the correction of the protocol of protocol.

[2] The case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the correction of the protocol of compromise, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, even though the defendant and the other party seeking correction under the protocol of compromise could have a considerable probability to be the same person, and if both parties allowed the correction of the protocol of compromise if they were the same person, they should have prevented an unreasonable lawsuit and prevented compulsory execution.

[1] Article 197 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 197 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 200Da37 dated May 30, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1530) Supreme Court Order 2000Mo3 dated December 12, 2000 (Gong2001Ha, 366)

Special Appellants

Incheon District Court Order 2001Kaman4036 dated September 10, 2001

The order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

1. According to the records, the special appellant filed an advance payment lawsuit with the Incheon District Court 96Gaso897 on August 20, 1996, and recorded the defendant's name in the protocol of compromise with the defendant on August 20, 1996, and entered the defendant's name in the protocol of compromise with the defendant, "special appeal 1, and address", and the special appellant filed the application of this case to correct the defendant's indication under the above protocol of compromise from "special appeal 1, to "special appeal 1, and 2," and then dismissed the application of this case without any further deliberation after only submitting only the certified copy of the resident registration under the above special appeal 2, and according to the certified copy and abstract of the above submitted protocol of resident registration, the resident registration address at the time of the preparation of the above protocol of compromise between the non-special appeal 2 and the non-party 2 can be known to each of the facts that it is the (name 2 omitted) ○○ apartment (Dong, Dong, lake omitted) in Incheon.

2. The purport of the court’s correction of the judgment where it is obvious that there is an error in miscalculation, clerical error, or other similar mistake in the expression of the judgment is that the court itself does not interfere with the execution 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2000Da37, May 30, 200; 200Du33, Dec. 12, 200). The same applies to the correction of a protocol of protocol.

In light of the records on the premise of these legal principles, in this case where it is deemed that there is a considerable probability that the "special appeal and non-party 1" and "non-party 2" are the same person, the court below should have deliberated whether the defendant and non-party 2, who are the other party of this case, under the relevant protocol of conciliation, are the same person by means of summons and questioning the other party of this case, and should should have prevented an influence of litigation and a compulsory execution by allowing the correction of the protocol of protocol by allowing the same person. However, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the revision of the protocol of protocol of protocol, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the decision. The argument of the special appeal concerning this point

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)