Summary
Miscalculations, clerical errors, and other similar obvious errors are the subject of correction.
1.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
This question begins from the point that, owing to errors in the notation of names or numbers, a judgment must not be directed at a different object. If one accepts the earlier conclusion that the formation of a settlement or mediation and its actual performance must be recorded as separate endpoints, what remains is to examine whether the miswriting left in the authenticated copy is a mere matter of notation. In the authenticated copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A, there is a miswriting in the designation of the parties, and part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part. In this scene, the performance, parties, and conditions demanded are specified in the claim statement, and if the plaintiff is in a position to defend the right concerning the action he has chosen, the entrance to this relief opens. Otherwise, before even choosing the channel of rectification itself, one must first confirm what is missing.
Article 211 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that where a judgment contains "an erroneous calculation or entry, or any other similar error that is manifest," the court may, ex officio (by the court's own authority) or upon a party's application, render a rectification order (Civil Procedure Act, Article 211). What this provision designates is errors in calculation entered in the judgment itself, errors in entry, and errors that may be placed alongside them. Here the court acting by rectification decision is not one who newly sets the conclusion of the trial, but one who corrects the notation of the judgment already written. Accordingly, the act that becomes the object is the correction of the calculation and entry revealed in the written judgment, and the condition is that the error be manifest.
Following this provision and the conclusion of this section resting upon it reveals why an obvious notational error and a claim omitted from the trial each demand different treatment. The former is a case where something went astray in the course of transcribing the determination the judgment has already made; the latter is a case where the determination of the claim is missing altogether. These two must be distinguished. If the former is the object of rectification, the latter is placed on a separate channel called continued trial. There are no new requirements or exceptions added here. Only where it is not confirmed whether the error is one of notation or one of determination can one not fix which side to classify it under.
The counterargument that the boundary of manifestness may be unclear targets a considerable inconvenience. That is, if a manifestly unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment, requiring a separate challenge is sheer waste. This observation remains. There may be cases where the line between a notational error and an error of determination becomes blurred in actual civil actions, and the trouble experienced by the parties in between cannot be erased. Even so, a disputed substantive determination cannot be turned into an obvious miswriting. What can be corrected by rectification is a manifest error of notation; a change of a substantive determination that has become the subject of controversy does not fall within its object.
In the synthetic scene, the facts relevant to this question are two. That in the authenticated copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A there is a miswriting in the designation of the parties, and that part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part. The former is a notational error that may possibly be placed among obvious errors of calculation, entry, or the like; the latter may be a case where the trial of the claim itself is missing. Yet on this scene alone it is not confirmed whether the error is one of notation or one of determination, nor whether the part missing from the operative part is an omission of determination or an omission of trial. Such items remain undetermined. Only if it is confirmed to be an omission not of determination but of the trial of the claim itself is it classified under the channel of supplementary trial.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. Obvious errors of calculation and entry and errors similar thereto can be corrected by rectification, and together with this the entrance to this relief opens when the performance, parties, and conditions demanded are specified in the claim statement and the right of the chosen action can be defended. What is not permitted is turning a disputed substantive determination into an obvious miswriting; in that case one cannot enter this channel. The premise that the formation of a settlement or mediation and its actual performance must be recorded as separate endpoints stands alongside this distinction.
1.2The Conditions That Block Relief
A judgment must not be directed at a different object because of errors in the notation of names or numbers. Setting down the premise that the formation of a settlement or mediation and its actual performance must be recorded as separate endpoints, this stage deals with two discrepancies appearing in the authenticated copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A. One is a miswriting in the designation of the parties; the other is the fact that part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part. The channel that corrects the former error and the channel that deals with the latter omission are different from each other. Among these, when the former channel closes is the present question. That is, what errors does judgment rectification correct, and what are the conditions under which that channel is blocked?
The provision that answers this question is in Article 211 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. That Article provides: "(1) Where a judgment contains an erroneous calculation or entry, or any other similar error that is manifest, the court may, ex officio (by the court's own authority) or upon a party's application, render a rectification order" (Civil Procedure Act, Article 211). This provision first narrows the range of the errors that become the object. Erroneous calculation, erroneous entry, and errors similar thereto belong to that range. At the same time it requires that the error be manifest. The court may render a decision correcting it ex officio (by the court's own authority) or upon a party's application.
The scope of the object set by this provision and the requirement of manifestness must be read together. Here judgment rectification means a decision correcting an obvious error of calculation, entry, or the like. That is, rectification is a stage that corrects an obvious error relating to calculation and entry, and not a stage that reargues the content of the determination itself. If the matter in dispute is not a notational error but a change of a substantive determination and therefore does not fall within the statutory object of rectification, or if any one of the statutory requirements is not met, that channel of relief closes. The absence of the manifestness demanded by the provision leads to the same conclusion by itself.
The counterargument raised strongly against so narrow a scope arises from a concern about waste. This counterargument regards it as waste to require a separate challenge when a manifestly unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment. It means dividing into two disputes what could be ended with one judgment, so that time and cost increase and the parties' inconvenience grows. This inconvenience cannot be erased. Even so, the answer does not change. So long as rectification is a decision that corrects an error of notation, the rightness or wrongness of the content of the determination cannot pass through the door of that stage.
Examining the scope of this section on the basis only of the facts set in the synthetic scene, the miswriting in the designation of the parties appears to concern an erroneous entry, while the fact that part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part is a problem of another kind. Whether the former is close to an obvious error of calculation, entry, or the like, and whether the latter is an error of determination or an omission of the trial itself, has not been confirmed at present. While it is not confirmed whether the error is one of notation or one of determination, which channel to place it in remains undetermined.
The line this section draws is this. An obvious error of calculation, entry, or the like may be corrected by rectification, but correcting the content of a determination in a better direction stops before that door. Conversely, if what is at issue is not the content of a determination but that a trial is missing, then, being outside the object of rectification, it does not end with turning one's back on it. This is the line this section is charged with; how far the scope of specific entry errors extends, and how the remaining claim is to be dealt with, were not decided above.
1.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
It carries forward the premise that the formation of a settlement or mediation and its actual performance must be recorded as separate endpoints. As examined above, in the authenticated copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A there is a miswriting in the designation of the parties, and part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part. In this scene it is clear that, owing to errors in the notation of names or numbers, a judgment must not be directed at a different object. Then what errors does judgment rectification correct? And where is the boundary that cannot be fixed for lack of material?
Civil Procedure Act, Article 211 provides: "(1) Where a judgment contains an erroneous calculation or entry, or any other similar error that is manifest, the court may, ex officio (by the court's own authority) or upon a party's application, render a rectification order." This provision specifies the deciding actor as the court, and the act as a rectification order rendered ex officio (by the court's own authority) and a rectification order upon a party's application, respectively. The condition is when it is manifest that there is an erroneous calculation or entry, or any other similar error, and the object that becomes its target is the calculation and entry appearing in the judgment.
This provision and judgment rectification as defined above are bound together into one stage of determination. This definition places the object of rectification and its limits upon the same standard. That is, an error of calculation or entry corrects the part that has revealed itself as an error of notation, whereas changing, beyond the notation, the content of the substantive determination that the parties to the trial dispute lies outside the range set by this provision. If these two are not distinguished, a rectification order would absorb even issues that must go through a separate procedure for challenge.
The loss pointed out by those who oppose this distinction is not small. The criticism that requiring a separate challenge is waste when a manifestly unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment targets the time and cost of the person undergoing trial, and the inconvenience of a wrong judgment lingering long. The observation that the boundary of manifestness may be unclear comes from the same direction. So long as rectification is maintained as a decision dealing with errors of notation, the road of reclassifying an apparently unjust conclusion as a miswriting and amending it is closed.
In this scene, the facts belonging to this question are two. First, the miswriting in the designation of the parties falls under an error of notation. Second, the circumstance that part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part remains unconfirmed as to whether the error is one of notation or one of determination. Since the materials of determination needed for that distinction have not been specified, this item cannot be summarily declared remediless. So long as the scene itself does not distinguish whether there is an error of determination, whether it is an object of rectification remains undetermined.
Accordingly, the conclusion this section permits is limited to the determination that an obvious error of notation such as erroneous calculation or entry is the object of rectification. Where it is not confirmed whether the error is one of notation or one of determination, matters for which the materials of determination have not been specified are left undetermined, distinguished from remedilessness, and one cannot hastily declare that such a matter can be corrected by rectification. Conversely, neither should one regard the channel of relief as closed merely because there is no material.
1.4The Records Needed for Determination
Starting from the confirmation in the previous stage of the distinction that the formation of a settlement or mediation and its actual performance must be recorded as separate endpoints, this stage asks about the record requirements. In addition to the question of which errors judgment rectification corrects, it asks together which records are needed for that determination. Since this question is determined only within the range of the established records, it seeks no answer beyond the circumstances already fixed.
The provision prescribing the object of judgment rectification, Civil Procedure Act, Article 211, provides that "where a judgment contains an erroneous calculation or entry, or any other similar error that is manifest" the court may render a rectification order. The actor designated by this provision is the court; the act is a rectification order; and the condition is when the error of calculation or entry within the judgment is manifest. The provision, which limits the nature of the error to calculation and entry, binds the object of rectification to errors at the level of notation.
Accordingly, the conclusion stands that erroneous calculation and entry and obvious errors similar thereto are the object of rectification, and the stage determination is made solely on the material recorded in the original judgment, the claim statement, the application for rectification, the omitted operative part, and the course of the appeal. The reason for distinguishing an error of notation from an error of determination is that, whereas the former is the object corrected by rectification, the latter is of a nature that cannot be placed in that channel. Added to this is the condition that absent records are not filled in by surmise. Where it is not confirmed whether the error is one of notation or one of determination, that determination cannot be asserted as certain, and if it is confirmed to be an omission not of determination but of the trial of the claim itself, it is classified on the channel of supplementary trial.
Nevertheless, the counterargument that the boundary of manifestness may be unclear targets the point that requiring a separate challenge is waste when a manifestly unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment. The loss this counterargument worries about is the duplication of time and procedure, and its value is prompt realization. Yet even when answering this counterargument, the conclusion is maintained. If this distinction is erased, matters in dispute come to be treated as notational errors, and the result is that the channel closes in cases where rectification does not fall within the statutory object. The disadvantageous part pointed out by the counterargument, namely the duplication of procedure, remains unerased.
The facts in this scene relevant to this question are that the authenticated copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A contains a miswriting in the designation of the parties, and that part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part. The miswriting in the designation of the parties may appear to be an erroneous entry and thus may be weighed against the object of rectification, but whether the claim in part omitted from the operative part is an omission of trial or an omission of determination is not settled by the records alone. If it is confirmed to be an omission of the trial itself, it heads toward the channel of supplementary trial; if it is confirmed to be an error of notation, it heads toward the object of rectification. However, since which of the original judgment, the claim statement, the application for rectification, the omitted operative part, and the course of the appeal is recorded in what manner is not determined in the scene, the nature of the error remains undetermined.
What this section permits is to distinguish an error of notation from an error of determination on the established records and to mark the channel fitting each; what it does not permit is to fill absent records by surmise and render the stage certain. A state in which the legal channel is open is not converted into results of actual payment, delivery, or recovery, and unverified items are left as they are, undetermined.
1.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
Bearing in mind that the formation of a settlement or mediation and its actual performance must be recorded as separate points of arrival, the analysis now asks what kinds of error a rectification of a judgment corrects, and under what conditions a change overturns the existing stage determination. Here, rectification of a judgment means a rectification order that corrects an evident error in calculation, entry, or the like, and this definition binds the language of this section narrowly. What errors does a rectification of a judgment correct? As to this question, the range permitted by the text is first confirmed, and it is then separately examined which changes discard the existing blocking and effectiveness determinations and require the matter to be determined anew from the stage onward. Distinct from the recording of points of arrival addressed in the previous section, the focus here is on how to deal with the traces left by an erroneous statement in the judgment itself.
The statutory text corresponding to this question is Article 211(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. That provision states: "Where a judgment contains an evident error in calculation or entry, or other similar error, the court may, ex officio or upon a party's application, issue a rectification order" (Civil Procedure Act, Article 211). This text limits the errors subject to rectification to erroneous calculation, erroneous entry, and errors similar thereto, and imposes the condition that each must reach the point of being "evident." The actor indicated by the text is the court, the act is a rectification order issued ex officio or upon a party's application, and the condition is the confirmation that the error is evident. The confirmation made in this paragraph is that what this paragraph addresses is limited to cases in which an error in statement is evident, and matters prescribed in other paragraphs of the provision are not dealt with here.
If the subject of rectification permitted by the above text is fixed as an evident error in statement, this determination comes into direct contact with the definition of a rectification of a judgment. A rectification of a judgment is a rectification order that corrects an evident error in calculation, entry, or the like, and its scope remains confined to the errors enumerated in this very provision. The reason two things must be distinguished here is that, if the impression is left that errors in statement and errors in determination are corrected at the same place, rectification may be misused as a channel that reverses substantive determinations. One corrects an error of outward form such as calculation or entry; the other makes the determination on the claim itself anew, and these two become the subject of different procedures. If the definition laid down above points to the narrow scope of errors in statement, the conclusion follows that a gap where the determination itself is missing does not fall within that definition.
The counterargument that the boundary of obviousness may be unclear takes aim at the point that even a small and evident correction could set the conclusion right, so that requiring a separate avenue of appeal is mere waste. Where a clerical error in a name or figure written in the certified copy of the judgment distorts the outcome, yet the door to rectification is kept narrow by treating it only as an error in statement, the party may have to bear a disadvantage from which there is no return. This loss is substantive, and the criticism that substantive justice is lost by clinging to the form of procedure also arises here. Even so, in answering this counterargument one does not depart from the prescribed scope. However ambiguous the range of evident clerical error may be, packaging contested content as an error in statement goes beyond the condition set by the text, and that place is handled not by rectification but by another channel. The way to reduce the inconvenience pointed out by the counterargument is not to widen the subject of rectification so as to touch substantive determinations, but to classify cases in which the adjudication on the claim itself is missing as belonging to the channel of additional trial and to deal with them elsewhere.
Contrasting these two facts with the foregoing conditions, the clerical error in the party designation takes the form of an erroneous entry and can thus be measured against the subject of rectification set by the text. However, whether that clerical error is a mere error in statement or whether it altered the result of some determination cannot be confirmed from the scene alone, and so this point remains undetermined. Meanwhile, the fact that part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part is connected with the question of whether the determination on that claim remains outstanding or has been concluded, and its character cannot be fixed from the text alone. Since unconfirmed material cannot be filled in by conjecture, this section offers only a conditional distinction. What is fixed here is solely the criterion that separates what can be corrected through rectification from what, once confirmed as an omission of the adjudication on the claim itself, must be classified under the channel of additional trial.
The conclusion this section permits remains at the scope confirmation that erroneous calculation and entry and evident errors similar thereto are the subject of rectification, and extends to the maintenance of the boundary that a contested substantive determination cannot be converted into an evident clerical error. This confirmation does not, however, immediately assert which errors are in fact corrected by rectification or which claims in fact lead to additional trial; where it is not confirmed whether an error is one of statement or one of determination, the matter remains undetermined. Not to force-fit matters that cannot be fixed from the scene so as to broaden the conclusion is also a limit of this section, and a shortage of material does not itself mean that no relief is available. On the other hand, the direction is maintained that, if the matter is confirmed not as an omission of a determination but as an omission of the adjudication on the claim itself, it is classified under the channel of additional trial. Under the premise that the formation of a settlement or mediation and its actual performance must be recorded as separate points of arrival, the conclusion of this section is to keep apart the narrow scope of errors in statement and the distinct place of omission of the adjudication itself.
1.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
Even in a scene such as this, where what must be corrected is visible, which error is corrected through which procedure must still be sorted out separately. A rectification of a judgment is a rectification order that corrects an evident error in calculation, entry, or the like. Upon entering the question of the range within which this procedure may be chosen, it becomes apparent that errors in statement and errors in determination are different problems. In this scene, the issue lies in how to distinguish the character of the gap left by the second circumstance.
Article 211(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "(1) Where a judgment contains an evident error in calculation or entry, or other similar error, the court may, ex officio or upon a party's application, issue a rectification order." In this text, the objects the court deals with are errors in calculation, errors in entry, and errors similar thereto. The text presupposes two conditions. One is that the kind of error must pertain to statement, such as calculation or entry; the other is that the error must be evident. The actor is the court, and rectification may be made ex officio or upon a party's application.
The text of paragraph (1) and the subject of rectification determined in accordance with that text are considered together. Errors in calculation and entry and errors similar thereto are all defects of statement appearing in the judgment document as the resulting product, and rectification is what corrects them when they are evident. By contrast, a contested substantive determination refers to cases in which a dispute remains between the parties over what is in truth the case. The author judges that a dispute extending beyond the foregoing scope cannot be treated as an evident clerical error. The reason the condition of obviousness and the state of a dispute over a substantive determination must be distinguished is that the two are directed at different errors.
The boundary of obviousness may be unclear. A counterargument takes aim at this point: even where a conclusion contested beyond the range set by statute could be set right by a small correction, requiring a separate avenue of appeal is waste. The inconvenience spoken of by the counterargument is real, and the cost it leaves is not erased. The boundary the author maintains is only this one: going beyond the scope of calculation, entry, and the like set by the text of paragraph (1), it is not permitted to transfer an error of determination itself and load it onto an evident error in statement.
Two facts in the scene bear on this question. The former corresponds to a case in which the statement in the judgment document is erroneous, and so falls within the range indicated by the text of paragraph (1). The latter differs in character depending on whether it is an error in statement or an error in determination. However, this scene alone cannot determine which it is. Year, amount, accrual date, and judgment outcome absent from the synthetic scene have not been established, and the facts, service, and performance results of the actual case are also unknown. Accordingly, the latter circumstance remains undetermined.
Rectification is a rectification order that corrects an evident error in calculation, entry, or the like, and a contested substantive determination does not fall within its subject. As with the former circumstance, where an error in statement is evident, the channel of rectification opens; as with the latter circumstance, where the adjudication itself is missing, a separate channel suited to it must be found. What this section does not permit, by contrast, is to name a change of determination an evident clerical error and handle it by rectification. Even where the boundary of obviousness becomes blurred, the criterion of distinction is maintained.
1.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
Having taken as given from the previous section that a contested substantive determination cannot be converted into an evident clerical error, the question of this section is what a rectification of a judgment actually corrects within that boundary. In this scene, the statement bearing a clerical error and the claim omitted from the operative part are traces of different kinds, and only by determining which of them is the subject of rectification can the misfortune be averted of the judgment reaching for the wrong object.
The text answering this question is in Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act. That text first enumerates the errors subject to rectification as erroneous calculation and erroneous entry, and then adds other similar errors. The court may make that determination both ex officio and upon a party's application, and its premise is that the existence of the error must be evident.
Three things are required together in this text: that the error appear to be an error in calculation or entry; that the error be evident; and that the remaining matter be similar thereto. Here, a rectification of a judgment means a rectification order that corrects an evident error in calculation, entry, or the like. The essential point is that the object corrected remains confined to statement. It is not that the court renders a fresh determination, but that it removes an evident error that has seeped into the expression of a judgment already rendered; the conclusion that erroneous calculation and entry and evident errors similar thereto are the subject of rectification follows directly from this text.
This boundary of obviousness is not, however, sharply drawn. A counterargument aims at that boundary: even where a manifestly unjust conclusion could be set right by a small correction, requiring a separate avenue of appeal is waste. The loss is real. In a case that appears to involve only an erroneous statement, forcing the parties to hold out for mediation increases cost and delay, and those who relied on the certified copy of the judgment in their dealings are shaken as well. The answer is settled, however. The way to reduce waste is not to widen the range of evident clerical error, but to follow the appeal procedure that calls for a change of determination.
Contrasting this distinction solely on the facts of the given scene, in the certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A, the clerical error in the party designation may fall under an erroneous entry. Because it is an error arising from writing down who was adjudged, it may appear to be an error in statement rather than in the content of the determination. By contrast, the fact that part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part cannot be asserted unless the reason is confirmed. This is why there is an examination criterion that, if the matter is confirmed not as an omission of a determination but as an omission of the adjudication on the claim itself, it is classified under the channel of additional trial. Accordingly, the extent of error that rectification corrects is fixed only after the character of the error has been determined as one of statement or one of determination, through comparison of the original judgment, the claim as pleaded, and the application for rectification.
The conclusion this section permits is that erroneous calculation or entry, and other evident errors similar thereto, are the subject of rectification, and, added to this, that contesting the content of a determination does not enter this channel. The determination that corrects an error in statement and the changing of a substantive determination are different things. If one attempts to handle these two in a single procedure, the premise of an evident error in statement collapses.
1.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
On the premise that the formation of a settlement or mediation and its actual performance must be recorded as separate endpoints, this section now asks how far the boundary extends within which the same court can correct errors in a judgment on its own authority. The rectification of a judgment referred to here means a rectification order that corrects obvious errors in calculation, entry, and the like. In light of this definition, the question to be settled in this section is which of the two defects visible in the scene of Plaintiff A falls within the object of rectification, and which of them crosses that boundary.
The provision answering this question is found in Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act. Under this provision, the body that effects rectification is the court that pronounced the judgment, the timing is when it is clear that the judgment contains an error, and the proceeding is initiated either ex officio (by the court's own authority) or upon a party's application. Errors that are subject to rectification are first enumerated as "erroneous calculations or entries" and are then broadened to "other errors similar thereto." Here, "calculation" refers to errors in the computation of amounts appearing in the dispositive part (operative part) of the judgment, and "entry" refers to errors in the designations written in the judgment document, respectively, and obvious errors comparable to these two fall within the same scope. This section, however, treats only Article 211, paragraph (1).
Linking this provision with the conclusion of this section, the object of rectification of a judgment is limited to obvious errors in calculation, entry, and the like. As defined above, rectification of a judgment is a rectification order that corrects obvious errors in calculation, entry, and the like; accordingly, in the scene of Plaintiff A, an erroneous designation of a party falls within the type correctable by rectification to the extent that it is clear that the designation is wrong. Here one must distinguish the stage of judgment that concerns an error in designation from the stage of judgment that concerns an error in adjudication. The former is the case where, among the content contained in the judgment document, the entry itself departs from the facts; the latter is the case where it is contended that the conclusion reached by the court through examination and argumentation ought to be different. The calculations and entries enumerated in Article 211, paragraph (1), and errors similar thereto belong to the former; drawing in the latter and making it an object of rectification is a matter that exceeds the scope prescribed by that Article. Hence, first distinguishing whether a given defect is an error in designation or an error in adjudication becomes the starting point of the assessment of rectification.
The counterargument most strongly raised against this distinction is that the boundary of obviousness may be unclear. The counterargument runs as follows: where an obviously unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment, requiring a separate appeal is a waste. The loss aimed at by this counterargument is the duplication of time and procedure, and behind it lie the values of the inconvenience suffered by a party who has received an authenticated copy of the judgment, like Plaintiff A, on account of an erroneous designation, and the procedural costs that grow as the channel for correcting errors narrows. The foregoing answer, however, does not accept this counterargument as it stands. That answer is that a contested substantive adjudication cannot be converted into an obvious clerical error. A contested substantive adjudication means a matter as to which the contentions of the two sides confront each other and it is disputed that the court's adjudication ought to change; if this is repackaged as an error in designation and corrected by a rectification order, rectification becomes a channel for altering substantive adjudication. The procedural costs pointed out by the counterargument remain as they are, but those costs do not serve as grounds for broadening the statutory scope of objects of rectification.
Comparing the facts of the synthetic scene against the foregoing conditions, the authenticated copy of the judgment received by Plaintiff A contains an erroneous designation of a party, and a portion of the separate claim does not appear in the dispositive part. The former, the erroneous designation of a party, corresponds to an error in designation in which the entry itself is revealed to be wrong and can be treated as an object of rectification. As for the latter defect, that a portion of the separate claim does not appear in the dispositive part, if its cause is that the adjudication of the claim itself is missing, the settled classification is to categorize it not as rectification but under the channel of continued trial; if its cause is an omission of adjudication, there remains room to regard it as an object of rectification. On this scene alone, which is the case cannot be determined. Where it is not confirmed whether the error is one of designation or one of adjudication, the matter remains undetermined. Moreover, because no year, amount, or date from which a period runs is set in the scene, the results of actual payment, delivery, or recovery attendant upon rectification of the judgment cannot be fixed either. That the statutory object is open and that actual recovery has been accomplished are matters of different stages.
The conclusion permitted by this section is limited to the propositions that rectification of a judgment is a rectification order that corrects obvious errors in calculation, entry, and the like, and that erroneous calculations or entries and obvious errors similar thereto are its object. What is not permitted is the conclusion of converting a contested substantive adjudication into an obvious clerical error and disposing of it by rectification. Even in a case where the boundary of obviousness is blurred, classifying an alteration of substantive adjudication as a clerical error lies outside the scope of this section.
1.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
The preceding section examined what errors rectification of a judgment corrects; this section now asks how that provision applies to the channels by which rectification and a further trial supply the deficiency. To determine which channel each of these two defects is placed in, one must first confirm the provision that fixes the object of rectification. The formation of a settlement or mediation and its actual performance must be recorded as separate endpoints.
Article 211, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act describes the object of rectification as follows. "When it is clear that a judgment contains an erroneous calculation or entry, or other error similar thereto, the court may, ex officio (by the court's own authority) or upon a party's application, make a rectification order." (Civil Procedure Act, Article 211) This provision addresses errors in calculations or entries contained in a judgment, and errors similar thereto. The body is the court, and a rectification order may be made ex officio (by the court's own authority) or upon a party's application. The condition prescribed by the provision is that the time has come when it is clear that such error exists.
If this provision alone is taken as the basis, what can be corrected by rectification is an obvious error in designation, and changing the content of the adjudication does not fall within its object. The conclusion that erroneous calculations or entries and obvious errors similar thereto are the object of rectification emerges here. This is the point at which the reason lies for distinguishing an error in designation from an error in adjudication. The former leaves the already fixed adjudication as it stands and merely corrects the expression, and thus the provision permits it; the latter changes the content of the adjudication itself, and thus lies outside the objects written in that provision. Accordingly, this provision alone is applied, and the grounds of adjudication are not broadened by reference to the reasons for the judgment or other paragraphs.
Whether the error in the authenticated copy of the judgment is an obvious error in designation or the result of a contested substantive adjudication may be decided at an ambiguous juncture. At this point the counterargument arises that, where an obviously unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment, requiring a separate appeal is a waste. Yet the settled answer does not waver. If a channel is opened by which the content of adjudication can be overturned through rectification, the weight of dispute will rather shift to a lightweight amendment procedure, weakening the protection at which a separate appellate procedure is aimed.
The two defects presented in this scene are compared against this standard. The erroneous designation of a party may count as an error in the notation of a name and is thus close to the object at which rectification is aimed. By contrast, if it is confirmed that the circumstance of a portion of the separate claim not appearing in the dispositive part consists in the adjudication of that claim itself being omitted, it is handled not by rectification but through the channel of continued trial. However, because it remains unconfirmed whether this error is one of designation or one of adjudication, and whether it is an omission of adjudication or an omission of the trial itself, this section presents only that distinction as a condition and does not fix it. No year or amount absent from the scene, nor any judgment outcome, has been determined either.
In sum, the channel of rectification is limited to correcting obvious errors in designation such as errors in calculation and entry, and that provision cannot be applied by extension to changes of adjudication. The settled conclusion is that erroneous calculations or entries and obvious errors similar thereto are the object of rectification, and corrections of adjudication beyond that are not opened by this provision alone. To seek a change of adjudication that is not an object of rectification, one must find a separate route, and that adjudication is argued outside this provision. What remains next is the treatment of the case in which not the adjudication but the legal principle has changed.
1.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
Up to the preceding stage, it was confirmed that rectification of a judgment deals with errors in designation; this section determines the parts to be separately adjudicated by further dividing the matter within that channel. If one fails to distinguish in this scene which circumstance is an object of rectification and which is to be entrusted to a separate channel, demands of different natures become mixed within a single application. By what standard that mixture of demands is to be separated apart is the question treated here.
Article 211, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when it is clear that a judgment contains an erroneous calculation or entry, or other error similar thereto, the court may, ex officio (by the court's own authority) or upon a party's application, make a rectification order" (Civil Procedure Act, Article 211). In this provision, the body is the court, and the acts are a rectification order made ex officio (by the court's own authority) and a rectification order made upon a party's application. The condition is that it is clear that an erroneous calculation, an erroneous entry, and an error similar thereto exist, and the provision stands that the court may make a rectification order only at the time when such error is clear. Here the provision merely limits the object of rectification to obvious errors in designation; it does not open any procedure for newly making other adjudications or for re-determining the substance.
Accordingly, rectification operates where the erroneous calculations or entries enumerated in the provision and obvious errors similar thereto exist, and herein lies the reason for separating the stage of correcting this obvious error from the stage of handling the contested adjudication. The former goes no further than correcting the mistaken designation of the object already fixed by the judgment document, while the latter contains the demand that the object fixed by the judgment document itself ought to be different. Although both of the foregoing cases may appear to change the content of the judgment, their natures differ; accordingly, they are not mixed and judged within the same channel, but are separated and adjudicated only in the direction that fits the stated conditions. And that classification is limited to the conditions written as operating cases, blocked cases, and undetermined cases; conditions or stages not found here are not newly created.
The strongest counterargument aims at the point that the boundary of obviousness may be unclear. The contention that, where an obviously unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment, requiring a separate appeal is a waste, concretely points to the losses that swift and cheap relief misses. This counterargument speaks both of the inconvenience that remains when the judgment stands departed from reality and of the double labor of having to traverse the procedure again for that reason. Yet one cannot answer while erasing those unfavorable aspects, and the foregoing answer is that a contested substantive adjudication cannot be converted into an obvious clerical error. That is, the range that can be called a small amendment remains confined to errors in designation, and content disputing the rightness or wrongness of the adjudication is not carried over under that name.
In the synthetic scene, the facts relevant to this question are the two that there is an erroneous designation of a party and that a portion of the separate claim did not appear in the dispositive part. The former, as a circumstance where the designation on the authenticated copy of the judgment is wrong, may in some cases be placed in the channel of rectification; the latter is treated differently according to whether the claim not appearing in the dispositive part was omitted from the judgment itself or whether the adjudication was omitted. If, among these, it is not confirmed whether the error is one of designation or one of adjudication, the matter remains undetermined. Items that cannot be fixed on the scene alone are left undetermined as they are; what must be cut off here is the path leading toward converting a contested substantive adjudication into an obvious clerical error.
The conclusion permitted by this section is that rectification remains a rectification order that corrects obvious errors in calculation, entry, and the like, and that the detailed classifications within that channel are limited to the conditions written as operating cases, blocked cases, and undetermined cases. Conversely, what is not permitted is the act of converting an error in adjudication into an error in designation and placing it among the objects of rectification, and the act of creating and inserting new stages outside the stated conditions. The handling of the claim omitted from the dispositive part has not been determined either way and thus remains undetermined, and that place is divided according to the conditions.
1.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
이 장면에서 판결 경정은 어떤 오류를 고치는가? 나아가, 열리는 경우와 막히는 경우 그리고 확인 전에 멈추는 경우를 어떻게 구별할 것인가? 이 물음은 명백한 표시 오류, 재판이 빠진 청구, 그리고 다투어지는 실체 판단이 서로 다른 처리를 요구하는 까닭을 밝힌다. 표시의 잘못과 판단의 잘못이 뒤섞이면 통로의 선택이 어긋난다. 따라서 경정으로 바로잡을 대상과, 계속 재판으로 넘길 대상, 확인 전에 분류를 유보할 대상을 나누어 살핀다.
이 물음에 해당하는 문언은 민사소송법 제211조에 있다. 이 문언은 주체를 법원으로, 행위를 경정결정으로, 조건을 잘못된 계산이나 기재 등과 비슷한 잘못이 분명한 때로 정한다. 여기서 ‘분명한 때’는 오류의 성격이 표시에 머무는 경우를 가리키며, 판단 내용의 정당성을 다시 심사하는 경우를 뜻하지 않는다. 조문의 다른 항이나 신청 기간, 효력에 관한 쟁점은 이 절의 범위가 아니다. 문언이 켜는 통로는 잘못된 표시를 바로잡는 데 한정된다.
이 문언과 앞서 정의한 판결 경정, 즉 명백한 계산과 기재 등의 잘못을 바로잡는 결정을 연결하면, 정해진 구별이 드러난다. 열리는 조건은 명백한 표시 오류가 경정으로, 재판이 빠진 청구가 계속 재판으로 각각 처리되는 경우다. 막히는 조건은 다투는 내용이 표시 오류가 아니라 실체 판단의 변경이어서 경정의 법정 대상에 들어가지 않는 경우다. 미확정은 오류가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확인되지 않은 경우다. 여기서 표시의 잘못과 판단의 잘못을 구별해야 하는 까닭은, 전자는 판결이 의도한 결론을 그대로 두고 표현을 고치는 데 그치지만, 후자는 결론 자체를 바꾸는 일이기 때문이다. 같은 수정처럼 보여도 두 단계는 대상이 다르다.
가장 강한 반론은 명백함의 경계가 불분명할 수 있다는 점에 겨눈다. 이 반론은 절차 비용과 실질적 정의 사이의 긴장을 지적하며, 억울한 결론을 눈앞에 두고 형식에 매이는 불이익을 부각한다. 그러나 앞의 답은 다투어지는 실체 판단을 명백한 오기로 바꿀 수는 없다는 것이다. 다투어지는 내용이 표시 오류가 아니라 실체 판단의 변경이라면 경정의 법정 대상에 들어가지 않으므로, 작은 수정의 외형을 띠어도 경정으로 열리지 않는다. 반론이 지적한 낭비는 남지만, 그 불이익은 경정의 대상을 넓혀 다투어지는 판단을 오기로 바꾸는 방식으로 해소할 수 없다.
합성 장면에서 원고 A가 받은 판결 정본에는 당사자 표시의 오기가 있다. 이 오기가 의도한 당사자 표기를 그대로 두고 쓴 것을 잘못 옮긴 것이라면, 그것은 잘못된 기재에 해당하여 경정으로 열리는 통로에 놓인다. 같은 장면에서 별도 청구 일부는 주문에 나타나지 않는다. 이 누락이 판단 내용의 변경이 아니라 청구에 대한 재판 자체가 빠진 것으로 확인되면, 그것은 계속 재판의 통로로 분류된다. 반면 누락된 부분이 사실은 재판되었으나 주문의 표시만 빠진 것으로 확인된다면 경정의 대상이 될 수 있으나, 장면만으로는 어느 쪽인지 판정할 수 없다. 오류가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확인되지 않은 이 상태는 미확정으로 남는다. 확인 전에는 통로를 확정하지 않으며, 자료가 부족하다는 이유로 곧바로 구제 불능으로 돌리지 않는다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 명백한 표시 오류가 경정으로, 재판이 빠진 청구가 계속 재판으로 각각 처리되는 경우와, 다투는 내용이 실체 판단의 변경이어서 경정의 대상에서 막히는 경우, 그리고 오류의 성격이 확인되지 않아 미확정으로 남는 경우를 구별하는 것이다. 허용하지 않는 결론은 다투어지는 실체 판단을 명백한 오기로 고쳐 경정의 대상에 넣는 것이다. 이 경계는 판결 경정이 명백한 계산·기재 등의 잘못을 바로잡는 결정이라는 정의와 이어진다.
1.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
화해·조정의 성립과 실제 이행은 별도의 도달점으로 기록해야 한다는 앞 단계의 결론을 넘겨받은 채, 이번 절은 고쳐 쓸 수 있는 오류의 경계를 묻는다. 원고 A가 받은 판결 정본에는 당사자 표시의 오기가 있고 별도 청구 일부는 주문에 나타나지 않으나, 그중 어느 잘못을 어느 통로로 바로잡을 수 있는지는 아직 열려 있다. 표시 오류가 판결이 향할 대상을 어긋나게 하므로 이를 바로잡는 절차가 요구된다.
이 물음에 대응하는 조문은 경정의 대상을 문언으로 한정한다. 민사소송법 제211조 제1항은 "판결에 잘못된 계산이나 기재, 그 밖에 이와 비슷한 잘못이 있음이 분명한 때에 법원은 직권으로 또는 당사자의 신청에 따라 경정결정을 할 수 있다"고 정한다(민사소송법 제211조). 이 문언에서 주체는 법원이고, 행위는 직권에 의한 또는 당사자의 신청에 따른 경정결정이며, 조건은 잘못된 계산이나 기재 등과 비슷한 잘못이 있음이 분명한 때이다. 판결 경정은 이렇게 명백한 계산·기재 등의 잘못을 바로잡는 결정을 뜻한다.
이 문언과 그에 부여된 이 절의 결론이 연결되는 지점은 바로 그 조건이다. 법원이 다루는 잘못은 그것이 명백한 계산이나 기재의 잘못으로 보이는 경우에 한정되며, 그 범위를 넘는 판단은 경정의 대상에 들지 않는다. 따라서 두 판단 단계를 구별해야 한다. 첫째는 실정된 문언에 비추어 오류가 계산·기재 등의 명백한 잘못인지 가리는 일이고, 둘째는 그 오류가 다투어지는 실체 판단의 변경인지 가리는 일이다. 첫째 단계에 해당하는 오류만 경정의 대상이 된다.
가장 강하게 겨눈 반론은 그 경계가 모호하다는 데 있다. 명백히 부당한 결론을 작은 수정으로 바로잡을 수 있는데도 별도 불복을 요구하는 것은 낭비라는 비난이다. 이 손실은 실제적이다. 당사자로서는 기재 하나 바로잡아 판결문을 간결하게 고쳐 받는 길이 항소 등 별도의 불복 절차를 거치는 것보다 시간과 비용을 줄이며, 재판 자원도 아낀다. 반론이 지적한 불리함은 남겨 두되, 법정 대상이 아닌 내용을 경정으로 처리할 수는 없다.
합성 장면에서 이 물음에 관련된 사실은 두 가지이다. 당사자 표시의 오기는 잘못된 기재로서 명백함이 다투어지는 대상이 될 수 있으며, 별도 청구 일부가 주문에 나타나지 않은 사정의 오류 성격은 아직 확정되지 않았다. 이 사정이 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지, 혹은 재판 자체의 누락인지 자료만으로 확인되지 않으므로 이 절에서 확정할 수 없다. 다만 판단 누락이 아니라 청구에 대한 재판 자체의 누락으로 확인되면 추가재판의 통로로 분류한다는 점이 그 경계를 표시한다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 명백한 계산·기재 등의 잘못을 바로잡는 결정, 즉 경정의 대상이 한정되어 있다는 것이다. 허용되지 않는 결론은 다투어지는 실체 판단을 명백한 오기로 바꿔 경정으로 처리하는 것이다. 경정의 법정 통로가 열린다고 실제 지급이나 인도로 이어졌다는 뜻은 아니며, 자료가 부족한 사항은 미확정으로 남는다. 더 나은 법리로 판결을 고쳐 달라고 할 수 있는가?