Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Reading a judgment-correction application by the party's real intent
Supreme Court, Apr. 22, 2002, 2002Geu26 (ruling)
Case name: 판결경정
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a judgment-correction application filed in a district court names the claim-dismissal judgment of that court although that judgment had already been set aside on appeal, must the court read it as seeking correction of the land description in the effective appellate judgment and transfer it to the appellate court rather than dismiss it?
Holding
It should be read as seeking correction of the land description in the effective appellate judgment, not correction of a part of a first-instance judgment that had lost its effect on appeal, so the district court had to transfer the application to the appellate court as the competent court instead of dismissing it. A procedural act is in general construed by the principle of expression and the principle of appearance, and a construction contradicting what was expressed is not permissible; yet where clinging to the words alone would defeat the purpose of the system of remedies and procedural economy, it is necessary to consider the whole of the party's contentions and the party's intention and to construe the act objectively and rationally.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
판결경정신청이 이미 항소심에서 취소되어 효력이 상실된 제1심의 청구기각 판결 중의 청구취지 기재 부분을 경정하여 달라는 취지가 아니라, 항소심의 청구인용 판결의 주문에 기재된 소송목적물인 토지의 표시를 경정하여 달라는 뜻으로 해석하여야 하므로, 제1심법원은 그 신청을 기각할 것이 아니라 관할법원인 항소심 법원에 이송하여야 한다고 본 사례
Unofficial English translation
The application for correction of judgment should be interpreted not as seeking to correct the portion stating the claim in the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the claim, which had already been revoked in the appellate court and thereby lost its effect, but as meaning that the indication of the land, which is the subject matter of the litigation, stated in the operative part of the appellate court's judgment granting the claim, should be corrected, and therefore the court of first instance should not dismiss the application but transfer it to the court with jurisdiction, namely the appellate court.
Disposition
Other Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 이송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is transferred to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
그 소송행위에 관한 당사자의 주장 전체를 고찰하고 그 소송행위를 하는 당사자의 의사를 참작하여 객관적이고 합리적으로 소송행위를 해석할 필요가 있다.
Unofficial English translation
it is necessary to examine the entirety of the parties' assertions concerning that act of litigation and, taking into account the intention of the party performing the act of litigation, to interpret the act of litigation objectively and reasonably.
Factors
- 표시된 내용과 저촉되거나 모순되는 해석을 할 수 없는 것이지만
- 표시된 어구에 지나치게 구애되어 획일적이고 형식적인 해석에만 집착한다면
- 당사자의 권리구제를 위한 소송제도의 목적과 소송경제에 반하는 부당한 결과를 초래할 수 있으므로
- 항소심의 청구인용 판결의 주문에 기재된 소송목적물인 토지의 표시를 경정하여 달라는 뜻으로 해석하여야 하므로
Unofficial English translation
• Although it is not possible to interpret it in a manner that conflicts with or is inconsistent with the stated content,
• if one becomes excessively attached to the words used and adheres only to a uniform and formal interpretation,
• it may lead to unjust results contrary to the purpose of the litigation system for the remedy of the parties' rights and to litigation economy, and therefore,
• it should be interpreted as meaning that the indication of the land, which is the subject matter of the litigation, stated in the operative part of the appellate court's judgment granting the claim, should be corrected, and therefore
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1984. 2. 28. 선고 83다카1981 전원합의체 판결(공1984, 589)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 83DaKa1981 decided February 28, 1984, en banc judgment (Gong 1984, 589)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1984. 2. 28. 선고 83다카1981 전원합의체 판결(공1984, 589)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the applicant does not file the appellate and Supreme Court judgments as attachments, is there still enough in the application alone to read it as seeking correction of the appellate judgment's description of the land?
A later Supreme Court decision on jurisdiction over judgment-correction applications, or a change to Articles 31, 188, 197, 389 or 395 of the Civil Procedure Act, would require this entry to be read again. So would a record showing that the applicants did not intend to correct the land description in the appellate judgment.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the applicant does not file the appellate and Supreme Court judgments as attachments, is there still enough in the application alone to read it as seeking correction of the appellate judgment's description of the land?” vs Independent “Does the requested change to the land description satisfy the substantive requirements for correction of a judgment?”
The primary reading asks whether the application alone, without the judgments attached, can support the appellate-judgment reading, while the independent reading asks whether the land-description change meets the substantive requirements for correction.
판결경정신청이 이미 항소심에서 취소되어 효력이 상실된 제1심의 청구기각 판결 중의 청구취지 기재 부분을 경정하여 달라는 취지가 아니라, 항소심의 청구인용 판결의 주문에 기재된 소송목적물인 토지의 표시를 경정하여 달라는 뜻으로 해석하여야 하므로, 제1심법원은 그 신청을 기각할 것이 아니라 관할법원인 항소심 법원에 이송하여야 한다고 본 사례Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Changwon District Court, in its ruling of 21 February 2002 (2002Kagi259), read the applicants' judgment-correction application as one seeking to change the description of the land in the statement of claims of its judgment of 4 May 1999 (97Gahap4302) between the applicants and A from 1,299 square metres to 439 square metres, and recorded it in the application column of the ruling. It gave the simple reason that the application had no merit and dismissed it.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the application had to be read as seeking correction of the land description in the appellate judgment of the Busan High Court (99Na5460), which had become final on the Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal on 27 December 2001 (2000Da43963), so that court was the competent court for the correction. It held that the court below had misconceived the law on the interpretation of procedural acts and on jurisdiction over judgment-correction applications, an error affecting the trial, and reversed the ruling, transferring the case to the Busan High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- An application whose whole content, with its supporting documents, seeks correction of a first-instance judgment that still stands, since the Court read this one as reaching the effective appellate judgment.
- A correction application in which the party's intention, judged from the whole of the contentions, does not match the land description written in the effective judgment, so that the construction the Court adopted is unavailable.
- A case in which the judgment to be corrected has not been set aside on appeal and lost its effect, since the Court's reasoning turned on that loss of effect.
Record verification notes
Set the application, the statement of the requested relief and every attachment against each other, as the Court relied on the fact that the appellate and Supreme Court judgments were filed with the application. Confirm which judgment is final and which court rendered it, because in this case the competent court for the correction was the Busan High Court, which rendered the appellate judgment to be corrected. Check the wording of the Civil Procedure Act in force at the time, since the order applied Article 395 and Article 389, while Article 188, Article 31 and Article 197 were listed as provisions referred to.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 소송행위의 해석에 관한 원칙 [2] 판결경정신청이 이미 항소심에서 취소되어 효력이 상실된 제1심의 청구기각 판결 중의 청구취지 기재 부분을 경정하여 달라는 취지가 아니라, 항소심의 청구인용 판결의 주문에 기재된 소송목적물인 토지의 표시를 경정하여 달라는 뜻으로 해석하여야 하므로, 제1심법원은 그 신청을 기각할 것이 아니라 관할법원인 항소심 법원에 이송하여야 한다고 본 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Principles on the interpretation of an act of litigation [2] A case where the court held that the application for correction of judgment should be interpreted not as seeking to correct the portion stating the claim in the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the claim, which had already been revoked in the appellate court and thereby lost its effect, but as meaning that the indication of the land, which is the subject matter of the litigation, stated in the operative part of the appellate court's judgment granting the claim, should be corrected, and therefore the court of first instance should not dismiss the application but transfer it to the court with jurisdiction, namely the appellate court
Summary of the holding
[1] 일반적으로 소송행위의 해석은 표시주의와 외관주의에 따르도록 되어 있고 표시된 내용과 저촉되거나 모순되는 해석을 할 수 없는 것이지만, 표시된 어구에 지나치게 구애되어 획일적이고 형식적인 해석에만 집착한다면 도리어 당사자의 권리구제를 위한 소송제도의 목적과 소송경제에 반하는 부당한 결과를 초래할 수 있으므로, 그 소송행위에 관한 당사자의 주장 전체를 고찰하고 그 소송행위를 하는 당사자의 의사를 참작하여 객관적이고 합리적으로 소송행위를 해석할 필요가 있다. [2] 판결경정신청이 이미 항소심에서 취소되어 효력이 상실된 제1심의 청구기각 판결 중의 청구취지 기재 부분을 경정하여 달라는 취지가 아니라, 항소심의 청구인용 판결의 주문에 기재된 소송목적물인 토지의 표시를 경정하여 달라는 뜻으로 해석하여야 하므로, 제1심법원은 그 신청을 기각할 것이 아니라 관할법원인 항소심 법원에 이송하여야 한다고 본 사례.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 이송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is transferred to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제188조 / [2] 민사소송법 제31조, 제197조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger