Summary
The omitted portion of the claim continues to be adjudicated by the original court.
3.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
주문에서 빠진 청구는 이유가 부족한 청구와 다른 상태에 놓인다. 경정의 법정 대상을 벗어난 판단 변경은 경정만으로 해결할 수 있다는 전제를 두지 않는다. 원고 A가 받은 판결 정본에는 당사자 표시의 오기가 있고 별도 청구 일부는 주문에 나타나지 않는다. 주문에서 아예 빠진 청구가 그대로 두어도 끝난 것인지, 아니면 같은 법원이 따로 마저 판단해야 하는지가 이 자리의 물음이다. 여기서 말하는 청구의 누락은 청구에 대한 판단이 모자라는 경우와 구별된다. 전자는 주문이 해당 청구에 대해 아무것도 정하지 않은 상태이고, 후자는 주문은 섰지만 근거가 충분히 채워지지 않은 경우다. 이 절이 다루는 것은 앞의 경우다.
이 물음에 답하는 문언이 민사소송법 제212조에 있다. 그 제1항은 “법원이 청구의 일부에 대하여 재판을 누락한 경우에 그 청구부분에 대하여는 그 법원이 계속하여 재판한다”고 정한다(민사소송법 제212조). 이 문언에서 주체는 판결을 선고한 법원이고, 대상은 청구의 일부로서 재판에서 빠진 부분이다. 행위는 그 법원이 그 부분을 계속하여 재판하는 것이며, 조건은 청구의 일부에 대한 재판이 누락된 경우로 한정된다. 따라서 조건이 맞으면 별도의 새로운 소를 제기하거나 다른 법원의 판단을 구할 필요 없이, 원래 담당한 법원이 남은 부분을 마저 심리한다. 조문의 다른 항이나 다른 조정 절차는 이 절에서 다루지 않는다.
이 문언은 청구 일부의 재판 누락에 대해 계속 재판의 방식을 지정함으로써, 해당 청구가 이미 끝난 것으로 볼 수 없음을 분명히 한다. 그 청구부분은 판결의 효력 밖에 남아 있고, 같은 법원이 그 부분을 이어 심리해 주문으로 마무리한다. 여기서 추가재판은 누락한 청구부분에 대해 계속하는 재판을 뜻한다. 이 추가재판은 표시의 오기를 고치는 경정과 구별된다. 경정은 판결문의 표기나 계산처럼 명백한 잘못을 정정하는 절차이고, 청구 일부가 아예 재판되지 않은 경우는 판단의 대상 자체가 빠진 상태라서 다른 보완 통로를 요구한다. 이 둘의 대상이 다르므로 하나로 처리하면 남은 청구를 마저 판단하는 길이 막힌다. 다만 이 구제의 통로가 열리려면 요구하는 급부·당사자·조건이 청구취지에 특정되고 선택한 소의 권리를 방어할 수 있어야 한다. 여기서 특정이란 청구취지가 요구하는 내용을 다른 것과 겹치지 않게 가리키는 상태를 말한다.
청구의 누락 여부가 다투어지면 절차 선택이 어려워진다는 반론이 제기된다. 원고의 입장에서는 명백히 부당한 결론을 작은 수정으로 바로잡을 수 있는데도 별도의 불복 절차를 요구받는다면 시간과 비용이 헛되이 든다. 어떤 공백이 표시의 오기인지, 아니면 재판 자체가 빠진 것인지가 논쟁이 되면 어느 길로 들어가야 할지 가늠하기 어렵고, 잘못 골라 놓으면 그 신청이 기각될 위험도 있다. 이러한 불편과 절차적 부담을 가볍게 볼 수는 없다. 그렇더라도 청구 누락을 자동 기각으로 읽을 수는 없다. 주문에 나타나지 않은 청구에 대해 법원이 아무 판단도 하지 않았다면 그 부분은 판단을 받은 바가 없으므로, 그것이 끝난 것으로 정해졌다는 취급은 정당화되지 않는다. 반론이 지적한 어려움은 절차 선택의 비용 문제이지, 남은 청구의 종국 판단 여부를 바꾸지는 않는다.
이 두 가지는 서로 다른 상태를 가리킨다. 당사자 표시의 오기는 판결문의 표기에 관한 문제이고, 별도 청구 일부가 주문에 나타나지 않은 것은 그 청구에 대한 재판이 누락된 상태로 읽힌다. 다만 장면만으로는 그 공백이 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확정되지 않았고, 실제 기록인 판결 원본·청구취지·경정신청·누락한 주문·항소 경과를 대조해야 어느 통로에 놓일지 가릴 수 있다. 오류가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확인되지 않은 경우 판단을 유보할 수밖에 없고, 만약 판단 누락이 아니라 청구에 대한 재판 자체의 누락으로 확인되면 추가재판의 통로로 분류한다. 장면에는 연도·금액·기산일·판결 결과가 설정되어 있지 않아 이에 대해서는 확정할 수 없다.
이상에서 이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 판결문의 명백한 표시 오류는 경정으로, 재판에서 빠진 청구는 계속 재판으로 각각 처리되며, 후자의 통로를 추가재판이라 부른다. 그 입구가 열리는 기준은 요구하는 급부·당사자·조건이 청구취지에 특정되고 선택한 소의 권리를 방어할 수 있는 상태이다. 이 기준을 넘지 못하면 계속 재판의 통로를 열어 달라고 구할 수 없다. 그렇다고 주문에서 빠진 청구를 자동으로 기각된 것으로 취급해서도 안 된다. 이 절이 정하지 않는 것은 앞뒤의 다른 절차 선택 문제와 그 경정 신청의 요건이다.
3.2The Conditions That Block Relief
경정의 법정 대상을 벗어난 판단 변경은 경정만으로 해결할 수 있다고 전제할 수 없다. 이제 청구 일부를 전혀 재판하지 않았다면 그대로 끝난 것인지, 그리고 그 보완 통로가 닫히는 조건은 무엇인지 살펴봐야 한다.
이 물음에 대응하는 법문은 민사소송법 제212조 제1항이다. 그 문언은 “①법원이 청구의 일부에 대하여 재판을 누락한 경우에 그 청구부분에 대하여는 그 법원이 계속하여 재판한다”(민사소송법 제212조)고 정한다. 여기서 말하는 주체는 판결을 선고한 그 법원이고, 행위는 청구의 일부에 대한 재판을 누락한 것이며, 조건은 그 청구부분이 남아 있다는 것이다.
이 문언은 누락한 청구부분을 원래 법원이 계속하여 재판한다는 귀속을 분명히 한다. 따라서 절차가 열리는 때와 닫히는 때를 나눌 수 있는데, 전자는 재판 자체가 빠진 청구가 확인되어 계속 재판이 정해지는 경우이고, 후자는 다투는 내용이 표시 오류가 아니라 실체 판단의 변경이어서 경정의 법정 대상에 들어가지 않으며 법정 요건 중 하나라도 충족되지 않는 경우다. 표시의 잘못과 판단의 잘못을 함께 처리하지 않는 이유는, 첫째는 경정의 대상이고 둘째는 경정의 대상이 아니므로 이 구제의 통로가 서로 다르게 열리거나 닫힌다.
누락 여부가 다투어지면 절차 선택이 어려워지며, 명백히 부당한 결론을 작은 수정으로 바로잡을 수 있는데도 별도 불복을 요구하는 것은 낭비라는 비판도 있다. 그러나 청구 누락을 자동 기각으로 읽을 수는 없다. 누락은 재판이 빠진 상태를 가리키는 것일 뿐, 법원이 그 부분에 대해 청구를 기각했다는 뜻으로 확정된 것은 아니므로, 그 통로가 막힌다 해도 기각이라는 결과가 생겨난다고 보기는 어렵다.
당사자 표시의 오기는 표시 오류로 보아 경정의 대상에 해당할 수 있지만, 주문에 나타나지 않은 별도 청구 일부는 재판 자체의 누락으로 보이는지 판단의 누락으로 보이는지는 이 장면만으로 정해지지 않았다. 오류가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확인되지 않았다면 그 판정은 미확정으로 남는다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은, 누락한 청구부분이 확인되면 그 부분에 대해 원래 법원이 계속하여 재판하고, 그 계속하는 재판이 추가재판이라는 한정된 경로다. 허용하지 않는 것은, 다투는 내용이 실체 판단의 변경이라서 경정의 법정 대상에 들어가지 않는데 법정 요건 중 하나라도 충족되지 않은 경우에 그 통로를 여는 해석이다. 만약 판단 누락이 아니라 청구에 대한 재판 자체의 누락으로 확인되면 추가재판의 통로로 분류한다.
3.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
앞선 분석이 경정의 법정 대상을 벗어난 판단 변경은 경정만으로 해결할 수 있다는 전제를 두지 않는다고 확인한 데 이어, 지금의 물음은 이 경계를 더 좁힌다. 이 장면에서 청구 일부를 전혀 재판하지 않았다면 끝난 것인가? 주문에 나타나지 않았다는 사정만으로 그 청구부분에 대한 판단이 끝났다고 볼 수는 없다. 다만 미해결 상태인지 이미 기각된 상태인지를 가르는 자료가 남아 있지 않다면, 그 자료를 확보하기 전의 사정은 확정된 결론으로 못 박을 수 없다.
이 물음에 해당하는 법령은 민사소송법 제212조 제1항이다. 그 문언은 다음과 같다. “법원이 청구의 일부에 대하여 재판을 누락한 경우에 그 청구부분에 대하여는 그 법원이 계속하여 재판한다.”(민사소송법 제212조) 여기서 주체는 그 판결을 내린 법원이고, 행위는 청구의 일부에 대한 재판의 누락이며, 조건은 청구부분이 재판에서 빠진 것으로 확인되는 경우이다. 이 조문이 가리키는 것은 판단의 이유가 짧거나 결론이 부족한 사정이 아니라, 청구에 대한 재판 자체가 빠진 사정이다. 따라서 판결 정본의 주문에서 빠졌다는 사실과 그 부분에 대한 판단이 생략되었다는 사실은 서로 다른 상태를 가리킨다.
이 문언을 앞의 물음과 연결하면 정해진 결론이 나온다. 청구 일부를 전혀 재판하지 않았다면, 그 청구부분은 끝난 것이 아니라 그 법원이 계속하여 재판할 대상으로 남는다. 이 판단은 두 단계로 나누어 읽는다. 먼저 오류의 성격이 무엇인지 가리고, 이어서 그 오류가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지에 따라 처리할 통로를 정한다. 재판의 누락으로 확인되면 계속 재판의 통로에 놓이고, 표시의 잘못으로 확인되면 경정의 통로에 놓인다. 두 단계를 한꺼번에 처리하면 경정의 법정 대상에 들어가지 않는 판단 변경을 경정으로 고치려는 혼선이 생긴다.
누락 여부가 다투어지면 절차 선택이 어려워진다는 반론이 가장 강하게 제기될 수 있다. 명백히 부당한 결론을 작은 수정으로 바로잡을 수 있는데도 별도 불복을 요구하는 것은 낭비라는 지적이다. 이 반론은 편의와 비용의 손실을 겨냥하며, 그 불리한 부분은 지울 수 없다. 누락의 범위를 가리기 위해 추가 자료를 찾고 시비를 거는 과정 자체가 소모이기 때문이다. 재판이 빠졌다는 사정과 판단이 있어 기각된다는 사정은 같은 것이 아니며, 전자를 후자로 바꾸는 것은 정해진 결론을 무너뜨린다.
합성 장면에서 확인되는 사실은 원고 A가 받은 판결 정본에 당사자 표시의 오기가 있고 별도 청구 일부는 주문에 나타나지 않는다는 것뿐이다. 오류가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확인되지 않았다. 이 사정은 불능이 아니라 미확정이다. 판단 재료가 특정되지 않은 사항을 불능과 구별해 미확정으로 남기는 까닭은, 자료 부족을 곧바로 구제 불능으로 바꾸지 않기 위해서이다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 자료가 없어 확정할 수 없는 경계는 미확정으로 남기며, 청구 누락을 자동 기각으로 읽지 않는다. 여기까지 확인된 것으로 경정과 추가재판 중 어느 쪽이 실제로 가능하다고 단정할 수는 없고, 오류의 성격이 밝혀진 뒤에야 통로가 정해진다. 반대로 이 절이 허용하지 않는 결론은, 주문에서 빠졌다는 사정만으로 그 부분이 이미 기각되었다고 확정하는 것과, 미해결 사항을 자료 부족이라는 이유만으로 종국 처리된 것으로 처리하는 것이다.
3.4The Records Needed for Determination
앞서 확인한 결론에 따르면 경정의 법정 대상을 벗어난 판단 변경은 경정만으로 해결할 수 있다는 전제를 두지 않는다. 이 장면에서 청구 일부를 전혀 재판하지 않았다면 끝난 것인가라는 물음이 열리고, 이를 판단하려면 어떤 기록이 필요한가가 함께 놓인다. 단계를 어느 쪽으로 분류할지에 따라 다음 절차가 달라지므로, 그 분류를 뒷받침하는 자료의 범위부터 정해 둔다.
민사소송법 제212조 제1항은 “법원이 청구의 일부에 대하여 재판을 누락한 경우”를 전제로 하여, “그 청구부분에 대하여는 그 법원이 계속하여 재판한다”고 정한다(민사소송법 제212조). 이 문언이 가리키는 주체는 그 법원이고, 행위는 누락한 청구부분에 대해 계속하는 재판이며, 조건은 청구의 일부에 대한 재판의 누락이다. 여기서 말하는 누락은 청구에 대해 내린 판단이 부족한 상태와 구별되며, 주문에서 해당 청구부분이 다루어지지 않은 상태를 가리킨다. 같은 항이 다른 조문의 쟁점까지 정하는 것은 아니다.
그 문언과 이 절의 결론은 다음과 같이 맞닿는다. 판결 원본·청구취지·경정신청·누락한 주문·항소 경과에 기록된 자료만으로 단계를 판정하며, 없는 기록을 추정으로 메우지 않는다. 이유에서 판단을 빠뜨린 것과 청구에 대한 재판 자체가 빠진 것을 나누어 보아야 하는 까닭은, 앞의 경우에는 이미 주문에서 청구가 다루어진 상태이고 뒤의 경우에는 주문 자체에서 그 자리가 비어 있기 때문이다.
누락 여부가 다투어지면 절차 선택이 어려워진다. 명백히 부당한 결론을 작은 수정으로 바로잡을 수 있는데도 별도 불복을 요구하는 것은 낭비라는 반론이 이 점을 겨냥한다. 기록만으로 단계를 가르면 경정과 추가재판 가운데 어느 쪽 통로인지 판단하기 전에 자료를 모으는 수고가 먼저 남고, 그 사이에 당사자가 겪을 지연과 불확실성이 구체적인 손실로 남는다. 주문에 나타나지 않은 청구부분에 대해 아무 판단도 하지 않은 상태를 청구가 기각된 것으로 처리하면, 재판하지 않은 부분에 대해 종국 판단이 있었다고 전제하게 되기 때문이다. 반론이 지적한 절차 선택의 어려움은 그대로 인정하되, 자동 기각이라는 방향은 앞의 답의 범위 밖에 둔다.
이 장면에서 이 물음에 걸맞은 사실은 둘이다. 판결 정본에 당사자 표시의 오기가 있고, 별도 청구 일부는 주문에 나타나지 않는다. 앞의 오류는 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확인되지 않았고, 뒤의 상태는 청구부분이 주문에 나타나지 않았다는 사실만 정해져 있다. 경정의 법정 대상에 들어가는 범위는 이 기록만으로 확정할 수 없으므로 미확정으로 남는다. 다만 주문에서 빠진 청구부분이 재판의 누락으로 확인되면 추가재판의 통로로 분류한다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은, 정해진 기록으로 단계를 판정하고 그 판정에 맞는 보완 통로를 가리키는 판단이다. 허용하지 않는 것은, 기록에 없는 사실을 채워 넣어 누락 여부를 확정하거나, 주문에 없는 청구부분을 기각된 것으로 처리하는 판단이다. 자료가 모자라면 그 자리는 미확정으로 남기고, 미확정이라는 이유만으로 구제 불능이라고 단정하지 않는다.
3.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
The dispositive part of a judgment is the place that contains the court's final answer to a claim, and the reasoning is the place that explains how that answer was reached. Accordingly, a claim omitted from the dispositive part itself is left without a conclusion, and it cannot readily be treated as being in the same state as a claim for which the explanation is inadequate. In carrying this over, since no premise was adopted that a change of decision falling outside the statutory subject matter of correction can be resolved by correction alone, the question now is, as to a claim left out of the judgment, whether that claim has been concluded. If part of a claim was never adjudicated at all, is it concluded?
Before answering this question, the wording of the statute must first be examined. Article 212 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "① Where the court has failed to adjudicate part of a claim, the court shall continue to adjudicate that portion of the claim." (Civil Procedure Act Article 212) This wording jointly prescribes the premise of a case in which the court has failed to adjudicate part of a claim, the object of that portion of the claim, and the method of handling that the court shall continue to adjudicate it. The subject of whom the wording speaks is the very court that rendered the judgment, the act is the adjudication, consisting of continued hearing and pronouncement, of a portion of the claim not included in the judgment already pronounced, and the condition is the confirmation that that portion fell out of the adjudication as part of a claim.
Connecting this wording with the conclusion of this section fixes the place of a claim omitted from the dispositive part. Since the court is to continue to adjudicate a portion of a claim that it failed to adjudicate, the omitted portion of the claim is not concluded as it stands but remains as an object that the original court takes up and adjudicates to completion. This does not denote a correction of the part that entered the judgment, but a channel that returns to the seat of adjudication the portion of the claim left outside the judgment. Therefore it must be distinguished whether what is lacking is the reasoning or whether the adjudication itself is missing, and if the latter is confirmed, it is treated as an omission of the adjudication itself with respect to the claim and is classified into the channel of supplemental trial.
The inconvenience arising when this distinction is drawn narrowly is equally clear. From the plaintiff's standpoint, where a manifestly unjust conclusion could be set right by a small amendment, requiring a separate challenge appears to waste time and effort, and because which of correction or supplemental trial must be chosen depends on what was misread, the predictability of the procedure suffers. Even acknowledging such difficulties, an omission of a claim cannot be read as an automatic dismissal. This wording merely provides that the court shall continue to adjudicate the omitted portion of the claim; it does not convert the omission itself into a dismissal of the claim.
Among these, an error in the designation of the parties has room to appear to be an error of designation, while for a separate portion of a claim omitted from the dispositive part the question arises whether it is a case in which adjudication of that portion of the claim was omitted. Yet where it is not confirmed whether the error is an error of designation or an error of decision, it remains undetermined. Only when the original judgment, the statement of claim, the application for correction, the omitted dispositive part, and the course of the appeal are confirmed can the distinction be settled on that material; the synthetic scene alone cannot establish the facts of an actual case or the result of performance. What is confirmed is only a conditional distinction, and if it is confirmed to be an omission of the adjudication itself with respect to the claim, it is classified into the channel of supplemental trial.
What this section can determine is the boundary of this distinction, and what it cannot determine are the questions outside it. If a portion of a claim remains without appearing in the dispositive part and that is confirmed to be an omission of adjudication, that portion is not regarded as concluded but is placed in the position of supplemental trial, in which the original court continues to adjudicate. Conversely, if a problem of a different nature, such as an error of designation or a change of decision, is confirmed, it cannot be handed over to this channel. The narrow conclusion confirmed is that the nature of the omission is first distinguished and the channel is chosen according to that nature, and it does not convert at once a state of deficient materials into one of incurability.
3.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
In this scene the remaining procedure diverges according to whether a claim not appearing in the dispositive part is merely inadequately explained or has fallen out of the subject of adjudication. If it is a claim lacking reasons, the content of the decision is wrong, but if the claim is missing in its entirety, then no decision on that portion has yet been made. Even when the two states appear to overlap, if the work of telling which it is is skipped, the very act of choosing the procedure becomes unstable. Earlier this section confirmed that no premise was adopted that a change of decision falling outside the statutory subject matter of correction can be resolved by correction alone, and the present question addresses precisely a situation in which the existence of an omission is disputed at that boundary.
The wording corresponding to this question is found in Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act. Its Article 212 paragraph (1) provides: ① Where the court has failed to adjudicate part of a claim, the court shall continue to adjudicate that portion of the claim. The subject indicated by this wording is the court that rendered that judgment, and the act is that court's continuation of the handling of the state in which adjudication of part of a claim was left unfinished. The condition is limited to the case in which part of a claim was omitted from the adjudication. Accordingly, the wording does not inquire into the cause or responsibility for the omission, but merely designates, as the subject who will take charge of the omitted portion of the claim to the end, that original court. This phrase stands apart from the correction of decisions as dealt with by other provisions, and it proceeds on the premise that what is missing is not the content of the decision but the decision itself.
This basis connects directly with the conclusion confirmed earlier. Because the omitted portion of the claim is to be adjudicated as a continuation by the original court, an omission of a claim cannot be read as an automatic dismissal. Here the reason for dividing the process into two stages of decision becomes clear. One is the work of telling whether what is missing is an error of designation or an error of decision, and the other is, if it is confirmed that the adjudication itself with respect to the claim is missing, the work of continuing the hearing of that portion. If the former is the work of determining the subject matter of correction, the latter is the place of adjudication continued as to the omitted portion of the claim, in other words, of supplemental trial. If the two stages are handled at once, there arises the risk that the substantive decision is changed in the course of fixing a designation error or, conversely, that an omission of decision is attributed to a designation error and the adjudication is skipped.
The strongest counterargument lies elsewhere. The loss at which this criticism aims is clear. A party can already gauge right and wrong from the written judgment alone, and it is said that if the party is told to choose a procedure anew or to wait, time and cost leak away and confidence in the judgment is shaken. It is also hard to deny that where the amendment would go no further than fixing a designation error, a single correction is more favorable to the party. Yet the conclusion that an omission of a claim cannot be read as an automatic dismissal is maintained. The reason is that the small amendment assumed by the counterargument holds only where it stays at the level of a designation error. If outside the written judgment a claim was never adjudicated at all, no decision has been rendered on that portion of the claim, and the wording contains no basis for conferring in advance the effect of dismissal upon a portion on which no decision exists. The way to reduce the inconvenience of waste lies in doing accurately the work of telling whether an omission exists, not in hastening the conclusion and fixing it as a dismissal.
A comparison may be made on the basis of the facts presented in this scene alone. Since an error in the designation of the parties is likely to be an error of designation, it is close to the statutory subject matter of correction. By contrast, a separate portion of a claim omitted from the dispositive part must be examined against the application for correction, the omitted dispositive part, the original judgment, the statement of claim, and the course of the appeal. If that omitted claim is simply a flaw of designation left out in drafting the dispositive part, it can be supplemented by correction. Conversely, if it is confirmed that the adjudication itself with respect to the claim was omitted, it is classified into the channel of supplemental trial. However, on the scene alone it is not confirmed whether the error is an error of designation or an error of decision, so that portion remains undetermined. Being undetermined does not close the channel; only the choice between correction and continued adjudication varies with the direction in which confirmation comes.
The conclusion this section permits is that the original court continues to adjudicate a portion of a claim whose omission is confirmed, and the conclusion it does not permit is reading an omission of a claim at once as a dismissal. Put differently, placing a missing claim in the same state as a claim lacking reasons and disposing of it, or abandoning the procedure merely on the ground that whether an omission exists is disputed, falls outside the scope handled by this section. If it is not yet confirmed whether the error is an error of designation or an error of decision, that portion is left unconfirmed, and one need only distinguish correction from continued adjudication according to the direction in which confirmation comes.
3.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
The dispositive part of a written judgment reveals the disposition made by the adjudication, and a claim that did not make it onto that dispositive part comes to have received no disposition at all. By contrast, its position differs from that of a claim that made it onto the dispositive part but did not receive sufficient decision. In such a situation, if part of a claim was never adjudicated at all, is it concluded?
As to this question, the Civil Procedure Act has plainly written down the place of the procedure. The subject indicated by this sentence is the court that pronounced the judgment, the act is the continuation of the adjudication of a claim on which it had already embarked but could not bring to an end, and the condition is the case in which adjudication of part of a claim was omitted. Here, part of a claim means that a part of the matters for which the parties prayed has fallen out of the dispositive part. This provision targets this situation alone and not any other.
The conclusion derivable from this wording is that the omitted portion of the claim is adjudicated as a continuation by the original court. What matters in this determination is why this portion of the claim must be divided between being "regarded as concluded" and being "regarded as an object of continued adjudication." Read in the former way, the result is that the party's right to the claim itself is extinguished merely by reason that the written judgment failed to say something. Only read in the latter way does there emerge the characterization that the court is in a state of having as yet been unable to complete the adjudication of a case already received. On the basis of this distinction, the author takes the view that the omitted portion of the claim is adjudicated as a continuation by the original court.
The counterargument that when the existence of an omission is disputed the choice of procedure becomes difficult aims at substantive loss and inconvenience. When it is disputed whether some portion of a claim was truly omitted, or whether the designation merely differs between the dispositive part and the reasoning, the party is at a loss as to whether to choose an application for correction or an appeal. Nor can the observation be ignored that requiring a separate challenge when a manifestly unjust conclusion could be set right by a small amendment is waste. Yet what this counterargument precisely targets is the trouble of dispute resolution, and it cannot serve as a basis for reading a state in which there is no disposition of the claim as though it were a dismissal. The author maintains the conclusion within the compass that an omission cannot be read as an automatic dismissal, and leaves the difficulty in choosing a procedure, pointed out by the counterargument, as it stands.
Comparing only the facts related to this scene with the foregoing conditions, the error in the designation of the parties in the certified copy of the judgment and the omission from the dispositive part of a separate portion of a claim are problems of different character. The former is likely to be an error of designation that can be fixed by correction, and the latter is the question of asking whether the adjudication itself with respect to the claim is missing. Which of these two is definitive, and whether the actual records support it, cannot be settled on the materials alone and remains undetermined. Any assertion that particular materials were secured or that recovery succeeded does not belong within the scope of this section.
Accordingly, the conclusion this section permits is narrow. As to a portion of a claim that was dropped from the dispositive part and did not receive adjudication, it cannot be deemed that a judgment of dismissal of that portion had been rendered, and the original court is to adjudicate it as a continuation. On the other hand, a claim that made it onto the dispositive part but is merely deficient in its grounds of decision, or an error that can be corrected merely as a designation error, is not placed within the object of this conclusion.
3.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
That single sentence is the point that no premise is adopted that a change of decision falling outside the statutory subject matter of correction can be resolved by correction alone. Now, among the boundaries of the same court's correcting the errors of its own judgment, the place from which the adjudication has slipped away must be examined.
Article 212 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides the wording directly applicable to this question. That wording is as follows: "Where the court has failed to adjudicate part of a claim, the court shall continue to adjudicate that portion of the claim." (Civil Procedure Act Article 212) Here the court is the original court that rendered the judgment, and the case in which the court has failed to adjudicate part of a claim denotes the case in which, among the matters for which the parties prayed, a portion left unhandled in the dispositive part has arisen. The subject of the act is the court, and the object of "shall continue to adjudicate" is limited to the omitted portion of the claim.
The clue connecting this wording with the conclusion of this section lies precisely in that limitation. The omitted portion of the claim is adjudicated as a continuation by the original court. (Civil Procedure Act Article 212) What the provision has the court handle is the portion of the claim itself, not the task of fully supplying the grounds in the reasoning. Hence two things are distinguished. One is the portion of the claim that, not appearing in the dispositive part, was not adjudicated at all; the other is the case in which the dispositive part was written but the basis of its decision was less fully disclosed. In the former case there arises the place of supplemental trial, in other words, of adjudication continued as to the omitted portion of the claim. Whether the latter case draws in the same channel is not the business of this section.
The strongest counterargument aims at the inconvenience that the choice of procedure becomes difficult. When the existence of an omission is disputed, the parties must first dispute even what is missing, and they stand at the fork of whether to seek supplementation from the same court or to go straight to the appellate instance. The observation follows that requiring a separate challenge when a manifestly unjust conclusion could be set right by a small amendment is waste. Such loss and inconvenience do not disappear. The conclusion already settled remains. (Civil Procedure Act Article 212)
In this scene only two facts bear on this question. Where an obvious designation error is handled by correction and a claim whose adjudication slipped away is handled by continued adjudication, the two channels diverge. The original judgment, the statement of claim, the application for correction, the omitted dispositive part, and the course of the appeal have been fixed as the confirmed records, but no claim is made that those records were assembled from an actual case. On this scene alone, the outcome of the suit, performance, or on-site results are not determined.
The conclusion this section permits is this. If part of a claim was never adjudicated at all, it is not concluded, and the omitted portion of the claim is adjudicated as a continuation by the original court. Supplemental trial is used in the sense of adjudication continued as to the omitted portion of the claim. The conclusion not permitted is the reading whereby, merely because it is missing from the dispositive part, that portion of the claim is of course deemed dismissed. On the other hand, where it is not an omission of adjudication but an omission of decision, or where what is in dispute is not a designation error but a change of substantive decision, the matter does not come within the channel of this section.
3.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
Unlike a miswritten designation of the parties appearing in the authenticated copy of the judgment, if a separate part of a claim is missing from the disposition, that claim has not been heard and decided but merely remains unrecorded. The question at present, therefore, is what can fill that blank. Because no premise has been adopted that a change of decision exceeding the statutory scope of correction can be resolved by correction alone, the work of choosing the route of supplementation remains.
The text of the source provision, Article 212, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, reads as follows: “①Where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim, it shall continue the adjudication as to that part of the claim.” (Civil Procedure Act, Article 212) This text fixes the actor as the court that rendered that judgment, the act as the omission of adjudication on a part of a claim, and the condition as the case where such omission is confirmed. What is thereby fixed as the result is the continued adjudication of that part of the claim, and this section addresses paragraph (1) alone.
Following the stage of decision that this text indicates and the basis for it, the criterion of determination is set not by whether the matter is an error of designation or an error of decision, but by whether there has been an omission of adjudication. Under this definition, even where the matter is missing from the disposition, if it is confirmed that the adjudication of that part of the claim has not been concluded, the route is continued adjudication. This text alone is taken as the basis for determining this route, without broadening its scope by reference to the reasons for judgment or to other paragraphs.
This answer, without erasing the inconvenience of the choice of procedure pointed out by the counterargument, also keeps one from leaning toward treating a confirmed omission of a claim as a concluded decision.
In this synthetic scene, the authenticated copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A contains a miswritten designation of the parties, and a separate part of a claim does not appear in the disposition. On these facts alone it is not determined whether that omission from the disposition is an error of designation, an error of decision, or an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself. What is unverified remains undetermined. The materials to be confirmed from the records are the original judgment, the statement of the claim, the application for correction, the omitted disposition, and the course of the appeal.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. If the part of the claim missing from the disposition is confirmed to be an omission of adjudication, that part is continued and adjudicated by the original court, and that route is called additional adjudication. Conversely, whether that omission is a mere miswriting of designation, or a matter contesting a change in substantive decision, cannot be determined by this text alone. Even if the matter remains with insufficient materials, relief does not thereby become impossible; it is merely classified as undetermined.
3.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
A part of a claim not addressed at all in the disposition and a claim whose basis of decision is insufficient occupy different positions. The former remains in an area that the judgment has not yet reached, while the latter lies within an area already subjected to decision. Under the premise that a change of decision exceeding the statutory scope of correction cannot be resolved by correction alone, what must be asked at this stage is what part is to be subdivided and determined anew within the route to be supplemented by correction and additional adjudication. Since a miswriting and an omission stand together in this scene, to which position to assign each of the two remains the question to be handled here.
Article 212, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides as follows: “①Where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim, it shall continue the adjudication as to that part of the claim.” The actor this text fixes is the court that rendered that judgment, the act is that court's continuing the adjudication, and the condition is the case where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim. The continued adjudication of the omitted part of the claim—that is, additional adjudication—opens at the position governed by just this condition. The ‘part of the claim’ here refers to the portion, among the claims that were to be addressed by the judgment, that the judgment did not reach, and it is therefore placed as a question separate from the sufficiency of the reasons.
The text that the court continues the adjudication and the conclusion of this section connect as follows. The omitted part of the claim is continued and adjudicated by the original court, and the detailed distinctions within the stage are limited to the conditions of the case where it operates, the case where it is blocked, and the case where it is undetermined. The reason the two concepts must be distinguished here is that an omission of adjudication and an omission of decision do not return to the same corrective procedure. The former goes to the position of additional adjudication, which fills again the part that the adjudication did not reach, while the latter is reviewed at the position of correcting the decision already rendered. This distinction, meshing with the premise that a change of decision exceeding the statutory scope of correction cannot be resolved by correction alone, brings it about that only the conditions for entering each route are specified.
The inconvenience that arises when this distinction is contested cannot be left out of account. One must first determine which route to choose, and if that determination diverges, the parties are at a loss as to which door to enter; and the objection also follows that, where a manifestly unjust conclusion can be righted by a small amendment, requiring a separate avenue of challenge is wasteful. This disadvantage does not disappear. Even so, an omission of a claim cannot be read as an automatic dismissal (rejection on merits). Rather than treating the adjudication of that part of the claim as concluded once the omission is confirmed, this section has chosen the answer of leaving open the position where the original court continues the adjudication, and the difficulty of the choice of procedure cannot serve as a reason for reversing this answer.
Comparing this scene with the foregoing conditions makes the position of the distinction clearer. Here, whether the miswritten designation of the parties is an error of designation or an error of decision has not been verified, and it therefore remains undetermined. If the part of the claim missing from the disposition is confirmed to be an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself, it is classified into the route of additional adjudication. Where a manifest error of designation is handled by correction and a claim omitted from adjudication by continued adjudication, respectively, the route is open; where what is contested is not an error of designation but a change in substantive decision and thus does not fall within the statutory scope of correction, the route is blocked. Whatever remains that cannot be determined from the scene alone stays undetermined.
The boundary between the conclusions this section permits and those it does not is as follows. As to the omitted part of the claim, the position opens where the original court continues the adjudication, and that position is called additional adjudication. Yet this conclusion neither sends an omission of decision down the same route as well, nor declares that a change of decision exceeding the statutory scope of correction can be resolved by correction alone. Nor does this section permit inventing new grounds outside the expressly stated conditions to enlarge the routes further, or arbitrarily binding an unverified error to either one side.
3.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
In the preceding section, the premise was accepted that additional adjudication means the adjudication continued as to the omitted part of the claim and that the omitted part of the claim is continued and adjudicated by the original court; what is handled here is not that definition but the classification of the route. In a scene where a miswritten designation of the parties is also found in the authenticated copy of the judgment, the path diverges according to whether the object to be corrected is the designation or the scope of adjudication. Whether a part of a claim that was never adjudicated at all is thereby concluded is the scope to be confirmed on this occasion.
The text corresponding to this question is Article 212, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The provision states that “where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim, it shall continue the adjudication as to that part of the claim” (Civil Procedure Act, Article 212). Here the actor is the court that pronounced the judgment, the act is the failure to adjudicate a part of a claim, and the condition is that the omission must concern a part of the claim. The provision does not address the issues of the other paragraphs.
What connects this text with the conclusion of this section is the distinction of the object. A miswriting of designation is placed at the position of being corrected by correction, and a claim omitted from adjudication is placed at the position of continued adjudication. The two grounds are corrected in different ways and therefore cannot be combined and handled as one. In the author's view, if what is contested is a change in substantive decision—that is, a request to alter the content of the decision itself—then it does not fall within the statutory scope of correction, and in that case the route is not opened by correction alone. The position of additional adjudication is determined according to whether the judgment overlooked the decision on a part of a claim, or whether the adjudication of the claim is missing from the disposition itself.
The strongest counterargument targets the point that, if the existence of an omission is contested, the choice of procedure becomes difficult. The inconvenience is considerable: where a manifestly unjust conclusion can be righted by a small amendment, requiring a separate avenue of challenge only lengthens the procedure and increases the parties' time and cost. The loss pointed out by the counterargument is real. Yet the author's answer is that an omission of a claim cannot be read as an automatic dismissal (rejection on merits). If an unverified omission is treated as a dismissal (rejection on merits), there arises the premise that the adjudication of the part of the claim not appearing in the disposition has concluded, and that premise is something never verified.
The facts confirmed in this scene are only that there is a miswriting in the designation of the parties in the authenticated copy of the judgment and that a separate part of a claim does not appear in the disposition. These are two distinct items; accordingly, the miswriting of designation may be reviewed as an object of correction, but the part of the claim missing from the disposition remains unresolved unless it is confirmed that the adjudication itself was omitted. This distinction is maintained even where it is not verified whether the error is one of designation or one of decision. The results of service or performance in a real case, and the success or failure of the judgment, have not been posited and are therefore not determined here.
What this section permits is the application of a conditional distinction; what it does not permit is the reading that fixes an unverified omission as either a dismissal (rejection on merits) or a success on the merits. Where a manifest error of designation is handled by correction and a claim omitted from adjudication by continued adjudication, respectively, the route operates; where a change in substantive decision is demanded, it is blocked. If the nature of the error is not verified, it remains undetermined, but that undetermined status is not the same as an impossibility of relief.
3.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
If the reasons overlooked a decision, the remaining question is whether that decision stood sufficiently; but if a part of a claim is missing from the disposition itself, there is no conclusion at all as to that part. The premise was taken as given earlier that a change of decision not falling within the statutory scope of correction cannot be dealt with by correction alone. Then, whether a part of a claim that was never adjudicated at all is thereby concluded is the present question, and if it is not concluded, what position must be left open in the Next Procedure must be settled together.
The text that answers this question lies in Article 212, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Paragraph (1) provides that “where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim, it shall continue the adjudication as to that part of the claim.” Here the actor is the court that has originally handled the claim, the act is the adjudication of the omitted part of the claim, and the condition is that adjudication was missing as to a part of the claim. Accordingly, what this text says is not to send the omitted claim to another level of court or to start over from the beginning, but for that court to continue rendering the decision.
This text first distinguishes the omission of adjudication on a claim from an error of designation in the disposition, and then applies to the former. If it is an error of designation, the party designation or the wording of the authenticated copy of the judgment deviates from the actual decision, and it remains a matter of correction; if the adjudication of the claim itself is missing, it becomes a matter of additional adjudication—that is, of the adjudication continued as to the omitted part of the claim. The two grounds are corrected in different ways, and therefore one side cannot be carried through to the end by the corrective procedure of the other. Hence the omitted part of the claim is continued and adjudicated by the original court, and that part is not regarded as already adjudicated and thereby fixed.
Even where that distinction does not plainly appear, an omission of a claim cannot be read as an automatic dismissal (rejection on merits). If the existence of the omission is itself contested, from the party's standpoint it is difficult to choose whether to apply for correction or to seek continued adjudication, and the objection weighs heavily that, where a manifestly unjust conclusion can be righted by a small amendment, requiring a separate avenue of challenge appears wasteful. Yet correction is the route for correcting an error of designation, and for a claim omitted from adjudication the route of continued adjudication remains. So long as no premise is adopted that a change of decision not falling within the statutory scope of correction can be resolved by correction alone, there is no ground to regard the omitted claim as dismissed (rejection on merits) of itself. The inconvenience of the choice of procedure is acknowledged, but an interpretation that mixes the positions of fixation and adjudication should be avoided.
Of what remains from the facts left in this scene, some can be determined and some cannot. The latter can be confirmed, by comparing the original judgment, the statement of the claim, and the omitted disposition, as an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself, and in that case it is classified into the route of additional adjudication. On the other hand, whether the miswritten designation of the parties is an error of decision or a mere error of designation cannot be verified on the present materials and therefore remains undetermined. The Records left by the original judgment, the statement of the claim, the application for correction, the omitted disposition, and the course of the appeal too merely fix the categories; they do not refer to actual records that have been collected. As for litigation costs as well, there is no fixed value as to how far the object of cost calculation extends, and it cannot be hastily determined on this scene.
Accordingly, what this section permits is the judgment that, where the adjudication of a part of a claim has been omitted, that part is not regarded as concluded but is left at the position of additional adjudication continued as to the omitted part of the claim. What it does not permit is the interpretation that, by the mere fact that it is missing from the disposition, the claim has reached an automatic dismissal (rejection on merits). Items remaining unverified as to whether there is a miswriting of designation or an error of decision are kept undetermined, and no conclusion of impossibility of relief is drawn from the reason that the materials are insufficient. What remains Next is the handling of the costs that follow that determination, once the position of additional adjudication is fixed. Is the judgment on litigation costs also to be supplemented separately?