Summary
A correction decision is appended to the original and the authentic copies of the judgment, and where appending it to an authentic copy is impossible, it is communicated by service of an authentic copy of the decision.
5.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
Even where there is a decision stating that the correction has been made, if the opposing party is looking at a different judgment document, the meaning of enforcement is distorted. The preceding section examined that an omission in the ruling on costs is supplemented ex officio or upon application, while observing the rules on effect where a valid appeal exists. Along the same line, the question now is how the judgment document comes to hold the corrected content, and from what point in time that manner operates between the parties. This question concerns how the corrected content is actually left in the document, and it requires a determination separate from which errors may be corrected or how an omitted claim may be revived. Accordingly, the concrete procedure by which rectification is appended to the document is examined first, and that threshold is then verified separately.
Article 211 (2) of the current Civil Procedure Act provides that a rectification order shall be appended to the original and certified copy of the judgment, and continues by providing that, where it cannot be appended to the certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served on the parties (Civil Procedure Act, Article 211). This wording makes clear that the corrected content is not a document wandering about on its own but is joined to the judgment that has already been served. Here the original is the body of the judgment kept by the bench, and the certified copy means the copy of the judgment document handed to the parties. The expression "appended" denotes the manner in which the rectified content follows the end of the original judgment document so that it is read as a single document, and service is the alternative route of sending a separate certified copy of the order for a certified copy to which appending is impossible. This Article lays down rules only on the communication of the rectification order; it does not also contain the criteria for determining which errors are subject to rectification.
This wording shows why the manner of leaving the corrected content in the document must be distinguished from the point in time at which its effect arises. The phrase "notation of rectification" here means the manner of joining the rectified content to the judgment document, and the rectification order itself and the manner of its communication do not stand at the same stage. One cannot write that the rectification has been communicated to the certified copy merely because the bench has internally decided upon the rectification. Communication is completed only through the procedure of appending it to the original and certified copy or, for a certified copy to which that is impossible, serving a certified copy of the order. By the same logic, an obvious notation error is dealt with by rectification, while a claim omitted from trial is dealt with by continued trial. That entrance opens, and a matter that does not pass that threshold is not handled by that route.
The counterargument that resists most strongly takes the position that a defect in communication must not obscure the substance of rectification. This counterargument points out that it is wasteful to require a separate challenge where a manifestly unjust conclusion can be set right by a small correction. If the procedure is dragged out over where the correction of an obvious clerical error in the judgment document is to be attached, nothing but meaningless delay remains even for the party who already knows the rectified content. Such cost and inconvenience are real, and this is the strength of the counterargument. Even so, the author's conclusion stands. This is because one cannot write that the rectification has been communicated to the certified copy merely on the basis of an internal act of correction. If a defect in communication is treated as though it did not exist merely because it is small, a gap remains between the certified copy received by the opposing party and the original kept by the bench, and that gap shakes the meaning of enforcement. The waste identified by the counterargument is something to be reduced, but it cannot be resolved by recognizing the effect of rectification in advance while communication remains unconfirmed.
In this scene, the certified copy of the judgment received by Plaintiff A contains a misstatement in the designation of the parties, and part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part. Of these, the misstatement in the designation of the parties may be regarded as an error in designation and may therefore be connected to the route of rectification, but whether the failure of part of a separate claim to appear in the operative part is an omission of trial or an omission of determination is not confirmed, and therefore it cannot be classified on the basis of this scene alone. Depending on what content is contained in the records of the judgment original, the claim and relief sought, the application for rectification, the omitted operative part, and the course of the appeal, it divides between an error in designation and an error in determination, and without that confirmation this matter remains undetermined. However, if it is confirmed to be not an omission of determination but an omission of the trial of the claim itself, it is classified into the route of further trial. Because the synthetic scene does not establish the facts of an actual case, one cannot assert the outcome of victory or defeat or the result of performance, and the distinction operates only within the range of the confirmed conditions.
Accordingly, the conclusion permitted at this stage is that the corrected content is left by being appended to the original and certified copy of the judgment, or by service of a certified copy of the order where appending to the certified copy is impossible, and it goes so far as to regard the rectified content as joined to the document at the point where that communication is confirmed. By contrast, a conclusion writing that the rectification has been communicated to the certified copy by internal correction alone is not permitted, and to assert the subject of rectification without confirming whether the error is one of designation or one of determination also exceeds the scope of this section.
5.2The Conditions That Block Relief
An omission in the ruling on costs is supplemented ex officio or upon application, while observing the rules on effect where a valid appeal exists. Within this flow, the question now put is this: how does the corrected content remain in the judgment document, and what are the conditions under which that route is closed? What makes up the scene is that the certified copy of the judgment received by Plaintiff A contains a misstatement in the designation of the parties, and that part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part. In this scene where a clerical error and an omission are placed together, this section clarifies the place at which the routes that may be addressed and the routes that may not be addressed are divided.
The notation of rectification means the manner of joining the rectified content to the judgment document. The wording of the statute that prescribes this manner is found in Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act, and among its provisions, paragraph (2) provides: "(2) A rectification order shall be appended to the original and certified copy of the judgment. However, where it cannot be appended to the certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served on the parties." The subject covered by this wording is the court that made the rectification, the act is the entry of the rectification order in the judgment document, and the condition is the existence of a certified copy to which appending cannot be made. At this point the question remains confined to how the corrected content is left in the judgment document so that the opposing party may read it. The substance of other determinations is not dealt with here.
Overlaying what Article 211 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides upon the foregoing definition reveals the fact that what the notation of rectification accomplishes is a connection on the document. The exception left open for when that connection cannot be accomplished is precisely the service of a certified copy of the order. Accordingly, one cannot write that the rectification has been communicated to the certified copy on the sole basis of the fact that a correction was made internally, and this is the fixed conclusion of the section. Here, when the notation of rectification fails to accomplish that connection, its remedy route is closed. This is why one must separate what has already been obtained in the preceding stage from what is to be left now. Even within the same document, the place where the corrected content is left and the boundary of what is subject to correction must be adjudged separately.
The counterargument that a defect in communication must not obscure the substance of rectification places its force on the point that it is wasteful to require a separate challenge where a manifestly unjust conclusion can be set right by a small correction. The loss this argument aims at is the duplication of procedure, the inconvenience is the burden of a circuitous rectification, and the value it seeks to protect is the unity of the conclusion contained in a single judgment document. The disadvantage that the counterargument identifies precisely is clear. If one fails to follow the substance of rectification properly, the path for a single error in designation is blocked. Even so, the answer to be kept is the same: one cannot write that the rectification has been communicated to the certified copy merely on the fact of internal correction. Here the notation of rectification is the manner of joining the rectified content to the judgment document, and on that fact alone the arrival cannot be established. The loss and burden of this dispute are real, but they cannot substitute for the communication prescribed by the wording.
Considering only the facts associated with this scene, the contrast with the foregoing conditions is narrow. A misstatement in designation reaches the place handled by the notation of rectification, in that its object is placed in the document. By contrast, in the case of a claim omitted from trial, the question then leans toward the issue of where the remaining procedure goes, and that is left to the other classification of this procedure. These two must be determined separately and are not bound together in a single adjudication. What cannot be adjudged from the scene is this matter. The synthetic scene is not an actual case, and there are no values for how great the loss of the dispute was, what certified copy the opposing party saw, or how the result of enforcement turned out. Those are not confirmed facts and remain within what has been stated, and only determinations matched to the conditions that have been established are left.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow in this way. Where the notation of rectification fails to occupy its place and its remedy route is thereby closed, what has been reached above alone cannot overturn the remaining question. Conversely, if the notation of rectification takes its place as the manner of joining the rectified content to the judgment document, that alone does not spread to the result of enforcement, and actual payment and delivery remain a separate question. Where the material is insufficient, the matter is left undetermined, and one does not immediately say that the route was closed. Where it is not confirmed whether the error is one of designation or one of determination, the same undetermined status is no different. Such adjudication does not go beyond this scope.
5.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
From the preceding stage there remained the summary that an omission in the ruling on costs is supplemented ex officio or upon application, while observing the rules on effect where a valid appeal exists. Taking up that summary, what this stage handles is narrow. The questions are how the corrected content actually remains in the judgment document, and where the boundary should be placed beyond which, the material being insufficient, no determination can be made. On the scene, the certified copy of the judgment received by Plaintiff A contains a misstatement in the designation of the parties, and part of a separate claim does not appear in the operative part. The object to be corrected is visible, but whether that correction has been appended to the document is not revealed by this scene alone.
The wording corresponding to this question is Article 211 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. That wording provides that a rectification order shall be appended to the original and certified copy of the judgment, and adds that, where it cannot be appended to the certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served on the parties (Civil Procedure Act, Article 211). Here the subject is the court that made the rectification, the act is the entry of the rectification order and the service consequent upon it, and the condition is the distinction of whether or not it can be appended to the certified copy. What this paragraph points to is the notation of rectification, that is, the manner of joining the rectified content to the judgment document. This section deals only with the wording of that manner of communication and separately does not expand the objects or requirements of rectification.
Joining this wording with the foregoing summary makes it plain that the place where the correction remains is the document. The rectification order is appended to the original and certified copy, and for a certified copy to which that is impossible it is communicated by service of a certified copy of the order. Communication is a separate stage of determination that must be placed alongside the substance of rectification. In other words, the determination of what can be corrected and whether that correction appeared in the document that reached the parties are different questions. If the two are mixed, one will record that there was communication merely from the authority to correct the error. Upon reaching the boundary that cannot be settled for want of material, the treatment required by this distinction is not to assert impossibility for matters whose materials of determination are not specified, but to leave them undetermined.
The strongest counterargument to this distinction is that a defect in communication must not obscure the substance of rectification. Where a manifestly unjust conclusion can be set right by a small correction, yet a separate challenge is required, the harm is not small. Costs and delay increase, the parties must walk through a new procedure over an error that could already have been set right, and it amounts to raising only the form of the document as an issue before everyone who knows the substance of the rectification. This disadvantage is not erased. But the harm the counterargument aims at does not eliminate the requirement of communication. One cannot write that the rectification has been communicated to the certified copy merely on the fact of internal correction. The fact that the route of correction is open and the record that the correction was appended to the certified copy must be kept distinct.
What is confirmed in this scene is only two facts. An obvious notation error may be dealt with by rectification, and a claim omitted from trial may be dealt with by continued trial. Yet the scene does not specify any application for rectification, the course of service, or the state of the original and the certified copy. Accordingly, one cannot determine on either side whether the correction was appended to the certified copy or whether a certified copy of the order was served. The same holds where it is not confirmed whether the error is one of designation or one of determination. These items are not classified as impossible on the ground that there is no material, but remain undetermined.
The conclusion permitted by this section is this. The manner in which the corrected content remains in the judgment document is by appending it to the original and certified copy, and where it cannot be appended to the certified copy, it is communicated by the alternative means of service of a certified copy of the order. Matters that cannot be specified as to which route of communication was used, the material being insufficient, are not refused as impossible but remain undetermined. There is a separate conclusion that is not permitted. It falls outside the scope of this section to record that the rectification was communicated to the certified copy on the sole basis of the fact that a correction was made internally within the court, or to treat a lack of material on communication immediately as irremediable.
5.4The Records Needed for Determination
Where it has not been confirmed whether the error is one of notation or one of determination, the adjudication is left undetermined, and this is distinguished from cases in which relief is barred. How does the corrected content remain in the written judgment? This question is separate from the substance of rectification; it asks how the corrected content remains in the document and how it reaches the parties. The certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A contains a misstatement in the designation of the parties, and part of the separate claim does not appear in the operative part; accordingly, where in the document the correction remains becomes the starting point of the problem.
The text of Article 211 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act addressed in this section provides that a rectification order shall be entered by appending it to the original and certified copies of the judgment, and that where it cannot be appended to a certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served on the parties (Civil Procedure Act, Article 211). Here the actor is the court that ordered the rectification, the act is entering the rectification order by appending it to the original and certified copies, and the condition is that, where it cannot be appended to a certified copy, a certified copy of the order is served.
The above text divides the mode of transmission into two branches, and the conclusion reached on this question is that the transmission must be verifiable from the record. The first concerns the record as to whether the rectification order was appended to the original and certified copies of the judgment. The second concerns the record of the route by which a certified copy of the order is served, because it cannot be appended to a certified copy. This determination rests on the original of the judgment, the statement of claim, the application for rectification, the omitted operative part, and the course of the appeal; without such a record, the conclusion remains undetermined. This is why the route of notation and the rightness or wrongness of the substance must be viewed separately.
The counterargument that a defect in transmission must not obscure the substance of rectification is aimed at the point that, where an evidently unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment, requiring a separate challenge is a waste. This counterargument has value in that a defect of notation must not erase the propriety of the amendment itself. For the mere fact that the amendment took place within the court does not confirm the fact of transmission, namely, that the corrected content was appended to the document received by the parties or that a certified copy of the order was served.
The misstatement in the designation of the parties appearing in the certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A admits of being viewed as an error of notation, and the fact that part of the separate claim does not appear in the operative part raises the question whether it is the trial itself that was omitted or the determination that was omitted. Among these, this question concerns how the corrected content remains in the document; where it has not been confirmed whether the error is one of notation or one of determination, the adjudication is left undetermined and is distinguished from cases in which relief is barred. The synthetic scene has not fixed the year, amount, commencement date, or outcome of the judgment, and does not address the results of actual service and performance; accordingly, whether transmission actually occurred cannot be determined from this scene.
What this section permits is the confirmation of the text that the rectification order is transmitted either by being appended to the original and certified copies of the judgment or, where it cannot be appended to a certified copy, by service of a certified copy of the order; together with the distinction that, where there is no record supporting that transmission, the conclusion is left undetermined. What it does not permit is the attitude of asserting that the correction has been transmitted to the certified copy on the basis of the internal amendment alone, or of immediately recording an insufficiency of record as a bar to relief. Nor is the substantive determination of rectification frustrated merely because the record has not been filled out.
5.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
The previous conclusion was that an omission in the judgment on costs is supplemented ex officio or upon application, while observing the rule on effect where a lawful appeal exists. That rule does no more than fill out the remaining operative part, and the question to be addressed here is different. How does the corrected content remain in the written judgment, and what change overturns an existing stage determination? Because the certified copy received by plaintiff A contains a misstatement in the designation of the parties and part of the separate claim does not appear in the operative part, it must be settled how these two defects are corrected and preserved in the document.
The text corresponding to this question prescribes the mode of transmission of a rectification order. Article 211 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "a rectification order shall be entered by appending it to the original and certified copies of the judgment," and that text designates the original of the judgment and the already-prepared certified copy as the documents in which the rectification order is to be entered. The proviso, however, also prescribes the method of preparing a certified copy of the order and serving it on the parties where it cannot be appended to a certified copy. The actor indicated by this text is the court that made the rectification, the act is linking and entering the rectification order in the original and certified copies of the judgment, and the condition is that those documents exist as objects of transmission.
This text and the conclusion of this section point in the same direction. For ascertaining where the content of the written judgment actually remains and how it appears to the opposing party is precisely the notation of rectification. The reason this notation must be distinguished from the substance of rectification is that the determinations the two undertake differ. The substance of rectification is a determination as to what errors may be made the object of rectification; the notation of rectification is a determination as to how, and in which document, the already-settled corrected content is linked and preserved. This distinction adds no new requirement; it observes the criteria of an already-settled classification.
There is a separate counterargument that most sharply exposes the cost of maintaining this distinction. It is that, where an evidently unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment, requiring a separate challenge is a waste. This counterargument aims at the point that, before a written judgment whose injustice the opposing party already knows, insisting only on the form of transmitting the correction loses sight of the substance. Yet the loss this counterargument must accept is clear. If transmission is said to have occurred although the rectification order was not appended to the certified copy the opposing party is viewing, the gap between that certified copy and the actual corrected content remains, and that gap unsettles the scope of the object of enforcement. How the corrected content was linked to and preserved in the judgment document must be recorded as such.
Even when dealing with such a defect of transmission, the order of determination does not change. The rectification order is appended to the original and certified copy and, where that is impossible, transmitted by service of a certified copy of the order; where it has not been confirmed whether the error is one of notation or one of determination, it remains undetermined. The confirmed records are only the original of the judgment, the statement of claim, the application for rectification, the omitted operative part, and the course of the appeal; the facts, service, and performance results of an actual case, and the year, amount, commencement date, and outcome of the judgment have not been fixed. Accordingly, from the synthetic scene alone it cannot be determined whether transmission was completed or what content remained in which document. Only where it reaches the case in which an error of notation is not an object of rectification and does not fall within the statutory objects of rectification is the route of rectification blocked, and then another route must be sought.
The conclusion this section permits is thus narrowed to the following. The notation of rectification is the manner of linking the corrected content to the judgment document, and only after that notation has been confirmed may the existing determinations of blocking and effectiveness be discarded and the matter re-adjudicated from the stage. Conversely, this section does not permit a conclusion stating that the substantive determination has been changed on the basis of the form of transmission alone, without a determination on the substance of rectification, nor a conclusion stating that the correction has been transmitted to the certified copy on the basis of the internal amendment alone.
5.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
On the premise that an omission in the judgment on costs is supplemented ex officio or upon application, while observing the rule on effect where a lawful appeal exists, one must examine separately the place where the corrected content actually remains and the place where it reached the opposing party. What is asked here is, in the face of the proposition that a defect of transmission must not obscure the substance of rectification, by what materials the opposing party's awareness is determined.
The text that answers this question is Article 211 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. The provision states: "(2) A rectification order shall be entered by appending it to the original and certified copies of the judgment. Provided, however, that where it cannot be appended to a certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served on the parties." (Civil Procedure Act, Article 211) Here the actor of transmission is the court that made the rectification order, the objects are the original and certified copies of the judgment, and the act is entering the rectification order by appending it. For a certified copy to which appending is impossible, the separate method of preparing a certified copy of the order and serving it on the parties remains open. This provision does not go so far as to determine what the rectification order corrects; it deals only with how the corrected content is linked to the document.
The above text and the conclusion of this section follow directly. If the court recognizes the substance of the rectification, the rectification order must be entered by appending it to the original and certified copies of the judgment; where it cannot be appended to a certified copy already served, a certified copy of the order must be prepared and served on the parties. These two routes perform a single task differing only in outward form, namely the task of enabling the parties to see the corrected content. Accordingly, the notation of rectification, that is, the manner of linking the corrected content to the judgment document, pairs with but is not identical to the substance of rectification. The substance points to what has been corrected; the notation points to the place in the document where the corrected content remains. That one cannot write that the correction has been transmitted to the certified copy on the basis of the internal amendment alone is due precisely to this distinction.
The greatest censure this distinction invites is that it is a waste. Where an evidently unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment, requiring a separate challenge merely because the form of appending to the document fell somewhat short imposes a double effort on the parties. Behind this lies the contention that, once the error has been confirmed within the court and the corrected content has been fixed, rights should not be determined by which sheet of paper carries the written judgment the opposing party holds. Yet the fact that the court fixed the amendment internally and the fact that the corrected content reached the parties are separate matters, and the meaning of enforcement goes awry precisely when those two diverge. Since one cannot write that the correction has been transmitted to the certified copy on the basis of the internal amendment alone, the defect of transmission must be separately confirmed, notwithstanding the charge of waste.
What can be confirmed in this scene is twofold. As to the former, if an error of notation is confirmed, the route of rectification is opened, and the rectification order must be transmitted by being appended to the original and certified copies of the judgment or by service. As to the latter, if it is confirmed to be not an omission of determination but an omission of the trial of the claim itself, it is classified as falling under the route of a supplementary trial. Yet because the year, amount, commencement date, and outcome of the judgment set in the scene are absent, the interval in which it is not confirmed whether the error is one of notation or one of determination remains undetermined. This undetermined state does not mean a bar to relief; it means a state in which the materials for adjudging which route to choose are still insufficient.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. Even where the substance of rectification is recognized, if the form of transmission is not in place, one cannot write that the correction has been transmitted to the certified copy. This section does not, however, determine whether a rectification order was pronounced, what error is one of notation, or whether the omitted operative part is the object of a supplementary trial. Determining what procedure the remaining materials, namely the original of the judgment and the statement of claim, the application for rectification, the omitted operative part, and the course of the appeal, indicate remains to be done separately.
5.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
As set out in the preceding section, one cannot write that the correction has been transmitted to the certified copy on the basis of the internal amendment alone; if so, in what form is the settled content of rectification inscribed in the judgment document that remains? This question is separate from the substantive determination of rectification and deals with where the corrected content appears in the document and how the parties come to see it. In this section, the notation of rectification means the manner of linking the corrected content to the judgment document, and that manner of linking determines the route of transmission.
The text for this question is found in Article 211 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. That text provides that the rectification order shall be entered by appending it to the original and certified copies of the judgment, and that where it cannot be appended to a certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served on the parties (Civil Procedure Act, Article 211). Here the actor is the court making the rectification, the act is the entry of the rectification order or the preparation of a certified copy of the order, and the condition branches according to whether appending to a certified copy is possible or not.
The manner this text indicates is broadly twofold. One is to enter the rectification order consecutively in the original and certified copy, thereby linking the corrected content to the judgment document itself; the other is, where it cannot be so entered in a certified copy, to make a separate certified copy of the order and serve it on the parties. Neither is a determination settling the substance of rectification; each is a procedure transferring the already-settled content of rectification into a document by which the parties can know it. The reason for separately defining the notation of rectification thus becomes clear. Although the manner of linking to the document and the manner of serving a separate document differ in route, they perform the same role in attaching the corrected content to the flow of the written judgment.
The most persuasive counterargument is that a defect in this mode of transmission does not render the substantive determination of rectification void. It is that, where an evidently unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small amendment, demanding a separate challenge by scrutinizing the defect of transmission is a waste. That disadvantage is acknowledged. Still, the mere fact that the correction was made internally cannot support writing that the corrected content was transmitted to the certified copy received by the parties. The fact that it was linked to the document or that a separate certified copy was served must be confirmed; absent that confirmation, the transmission remains incomplete. This is the boundary this section maintains.
Where a misstatement is corrected by rectification, the rectification order remains in the document in the manner of being appended to the original and certified copies of the judgment. If, however, it was already impossible to append it to the certified copy received by A, the manner is that a certified copy of the order is prepared and served. Which route is actually possible cannot be determined from the scene alone and is therefore left undetermined. Conversely, if the omission of part of the separate claim is confirmed to be not an error of determination but an omission of the trial of the claim itself, it is not an object of rectification and is classified as falling under the route of a supplementary trial.
The conclusion this section permits is that the corrected content remains in the written judgment in the manner that the rectification order is appended to the original and certified copies of the judgment, or, where it cannot be appended to a certified copy, that a certified copy of the order is prepared and served on the parties. The conclusion it does not permit is one describing that the correction was transmitted to the party's certified copy on the basis of the fact of amendment within the court alone.
5.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
The supplementation of the omission in the cost judgment covered in the preceding step was summarized as being carried out ex officio or upon application, while observing the rules on effect where a valid appeal exists. Now what remains at issue is, after the same court has corrected the error in the judgment, in what document and how the corrected content is recorded, and how that method falls within the scope of this section.
The provision corresponding to this issue is Article 211 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Its text reads: "②A rectification order shall be entered in the original and the certified copy of the judgment. Provided, however, that where it cannot be entered in the certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served on the parties." The actor prescribed by this text is the court that made the rectification, and its act is to connect the rectification order to the existing judgment document. The condition is divided into two: whether or not the entry can be made in the certified copy.
Connecting the foregoing text with the conclusion of this section, the transmission of the rectification is accomplished not by a single method but by two stages of indication. Where the entry can be made in the certified copy, the rectification order is appended to both the original and the certified copy, and the indication of the rectification then becomes a method of linking the corrected content to the judgment document. Where the entry cannot be made in the certified copy, since that certified copy cannot be regarded as corrected, the court leaves open the path of separately preparing a certified copy of the order and serving it on the parties. The reason these two must be distinguished is that, whereas the former aims at the completion of the judgment document itself, the latter is a transmission that supplements in place a document that cannot be completed. Either way, it remains a question of indication—of recording the already determined corrected content in the document—rather than a change of content addressing the substance of the rectification.
Yet the point most strongly targeted by the counterargument that a defect in transmission must not obscure the substance of the rectification lies here: even though an obviously unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small revision, if one must go through the procedure of appending to the certified copy or even separate service, costs and delay increase unnecessarily. For a party awaiting enforcement, whether the conclusion has been rightly changed comes first, and how it was recorded in which document may appear secondary. Still, this counterargument must be answered while leaving its adverse part intact. The mere fact that the correction was made within the court cannot constitute a transmission if the corrected content was not linked to the document received by the opposing party.
Here, an error in the designation of the parties is close to a mistake in indication and is readily handled as an object of rectification. By contrast, where part of a separate claim is omitted from the disposition, if it is confirmed that the adjudication of the claim itself was omitted, it is classified not as rectification but through the channel of supplementary adjudication. From the scene alone it cannot be determined whether the error is a mistake in indication or a mistake in judgment, nor whether the adjudication itself is missing, so this point remains undetermined. The materials to check are the original judgment, the claim, the application for rectification, the omitted disposition, and the course of the appeal.
The conclusion permitted by this section is limited to this: that the rectification order is appended to the original and certified copies, and where the entry cannot be made in the certified copy, the rectification is transmitted by service of the certified copy of the order; and that the indication of the rectification is a method of linking the corrected content to the judgment document. What is not permitted is the conclusion that transmission is complete upon internal correction alone, without confirmation of how the corrected content was recorded in the document.
5.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
From the preceding step, only the summary is taken as a premise: that the omission in the cost judgment is supplemented ex officio or upon application while observing the rules on effect where a valid appeal exists. The argumentative process of the previous step is not rewritten. The starting point of this stage is in what form the corrected content appears to the party who actually receives the judgment. The preceding summary and the present question target different points. The present question concerns how and where in the judgment document the product of the revision appears. It is precisely this point that is asked.
The text provides that "a rectification order shall be entered in the original and certified copy of the judgment," and then adds that "where it cannot be entered in the certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served on the parties." Here the actor is the court that makes the rectification order, the objects are the original and certified copy of the judgment, and the act is to enter the rectification order by way of appending. The condition is the case in which entry in the certified copy is possible, and only when that condition fails does the alternative method of preparing and serving a certified copy of the order open. This text does not deal with the object of rectification or the criteria of judgment.
This text is used as the basis for deciding the channel through which supplementation by rectification or supplementary adjudication is to be made, applying only the text within the scope of the original provision. Extending it to the reasons for judgment or to other paragraphs would go beyond this question. The connection between this text and the basis for decision is fixed straightforwardly. The rectification order is appended to the original and certified copies, and where it cannot be appended to the certified copy, it is transmitted by service of the certified copy of the order. The reason the two methods must be distinguished here is clear. One is the method of appending the corrected content to the original judgment document; the other is the method of preparing the corrected content as a separate certified copy of the order and sending it. Both methods constitute a way of linking the corrected content to the judgment document—that is, the indication of the rectification.
The strongest counterargument points out that a defect in transmission must not obscure the substance of the rectification. That counterargument speaks to the loss and inconvenience that it is wasteful to require a separate challenge even though an obviously unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small revision. Indeed, if the rectification itself is proper, the question whether the outcome ought to change on the basis of the method of transmission alone is natural from the standpoint that emphasizes substance. This counterargument does not disappear, and its adverse aspect remains as it is. Even so, the conclusion does not change. The mere fact that the rectification order exists internally cannot be taken to mean that the corrected content was transmitted to the opposing party; the route of transmission must be confirmed through the method of indication prescribed by the text.
Looking at this scene, the certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A contains an error in the designation of the parties, and part of a separate claim does not appear in the disposition. This fact is compared with the condition prescribed by the text. The error in the designation of the parties appears in a form corresponding to a mistake in indication, and if so confirmed, it corresponds to the indication of the rectification that is transmitted in the manner of the rectification order being entered in the original and certified copy of the judgment. By contrast, if the part of the separate claim omitted from the disposition is confirmed to be not an omission in judgment but an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself, it is classified through the channel of supplementary adjudication. However, the interval in which it is not confirmed whether the error is a mistake in indication or a mistake in judgment remains undetermined. Because the nature of the error cannot be determined from the scene alone, the judgment as to which channel applies remains conditional, and the actual results of service and enforcement are likewise not determined.
The permitted conclusion is narrow. Only the text of Article 211 (2) is taken as the basis for deciding the channel of supplementation by rectification and supplementary adjudication, and the method of transmission indicated by that text is the method of entering the rectification order in the original and certified copy of the judgment, or, where entry in the certified copy is impossible, preparing a certified copy of the order and serving it. This does not mean that the object and criteria of judgment of the rectification can be determined by the text of this paragraph alone. Expanding the text by reading it through the reasons for judgment or other paragraphs, or recording that correction was transmitted to the opposing party on the basis of the fact of internal correction alone, is on the side of what is not permitted. The determined conclusion is bound to the scope of the text and the method of transmission, and the nature of the error and the actual record remain as items requiring confirmation.
5.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
Even after it was decided, in the preceding section, that the omission in the cost judgment would be supplemented ex officio or upon application while observing the rules on effect where a valid appeal exists, the question left by the preceding step still remains: how is the corrected content recorded in the judgment? In other words, within the channel of supplementation by rectification or supplementary adjudication, the task of again dividing the parts to be decided and setting the scope of the parts to be so re-decided remains as it stands. This question does not repeat the argument of the preceding step but aims only at the criteria by which the facts entering the channel of supplementation are to be divided.
The text corresponding to this section concerns the transmission of the rectification order. Article 211 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “a rectification order shall be entered in the original and certified copy of the judgment,” and adds that “where it cannot be entered in the certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served on the parties” (Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act). The actor spoken of here is the court that performed the rectification, and its act is to record the content of the rectification order by linking it to the original and certified copy of the judgment. The condition attaching to the preceding and following summaries is also clear. Where the entry cannot be made in the certified copy, the matter proceeds by separately preparing a certified copy of the order and serving it on the parties.
Leaving unchanged the method of transmission prescribed by the above Article and connecting it to the conclusion of this section, 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 case where it operates is where a clear mistake in indication is handled by rectification, and a claim omitted from adjudication is handled by continued adjudication, respectively; the case where it is blocked is where the disputed content is not a mistake in indication but a change in substantive judgment and therefore does not fall within the statutory objects of rectification. The case where it is undetermined attaches where it is not confirmed whether the error is a mistake in indication or a mistake in judgment. There is no need to subdivide these three further into different stages and create them anew; nor are they matters to be judged in combination with the supplementation of the omission in the cost judgment left by the preceding section; the decision is made only within the conditions stated.
The strongest counterargument takes aim at the proposition that a defect in transmission must not obscure the substance of the rectification. Leaving intact the disadvantage that it is wasteful to require a separate challenge even though an obviously unjust conclusion can be corrected by a small revision, this counterargument holds that, if one binds oneself to the form of transmission, the substance of the correction is pushed to the rear. The foregoing answer is nonetheless maintained within its scope. Even if the dispute remains, whether the substance of the rectification is recognized and whether that correction was in fact transmitted to the certified copy must be viewed separately, and the latter defect cannot be overwritten by the former.
In the synthetic scene, the facts relevant to this question are that the certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A contains an error in the designation of the parties, and that part of a separate claim does not appear in the disposition. If the error in the designation of the parties is confirmed to be a clear mistake in indication, it fits the channel of rectification; if the absence of part of the separate claim is confirmed to be an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself, it fits the channel of continued adjudication, respectively. However, from the scene alone it cannot be discerned whether that error is a mistake in indication or a mistake in judgment, nor whether the reason part of the separate claim does not appear in the disposition is an omission in judgment or an omission of the adjudication itself. For that reason, which way it is to be classified remains undetermined. The original judgment and the prayer for relief, the application for rectification, the omitted disposition, and the course of the appeal have been set as materials to check.
Accordingly, the conclusion permitted by this section is that the channel of supplementation is divided and decided only within the three conditions stated; beyond that, it does not permit newly adding stages or substituting the substance of the correction for the defect in transmission so as to determine it. The indication of the rectification means the method of linking the corrected content to the judgment document, and is dealt with only within the scope in which that connection is made by appending to the original and certified copies or by service of the certified copy of the order.
5.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
In this scene, how is the corrected content recorded in the judgment? At what boundary are the operation, the blockage, and the undetermined status of the channel of supplementation by rectification and supplementary adjudication distinguished?
Its paragraph (2) provides that "a rectification order shall be entered in the original and certified copy of the judgment," and then adds that where it cannot be entered in the certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served on the parties. The actor this text indicates is the court that renders the rectification order, and the act is to enter that order in the original and certified copy of the judgment. The condition is that the rectification order exists, and where it cannot be appended to the certified copy, service in that place substitutes for transmission.
This method of transmission and the conclusion of this section connect as follows. This channel opens when a clear mistake in indication is handled by rectification and a claim omitted from adjudication is handled by continued adjudication, respectively. Here the reason for distinguishing a mistake in indication from a mistake in judgment becomes apparent. The former is an error in the expression written in the judgment document, and thus can be filled by correcting and linking that document, but the latter is an act that changes the direction of the substantive judgment rendered by the court itself and is not an object to be corrected in the same way. A claim omitted from adjudication is likewise not a defect in the document's indication but a place where judgment is entirely absent, and therefore is left to the channel of continued adjudication rather than rectification.
The strongest counterargument takes aim at the proposition that a defect in transmission must not obscure the substance of the rectification. The loss this counterargument fears is clear. Where the judgment contains an obviously unjust conclusion, if a separate challenge is demanded for a place that can be corrected by a small revision such as the designation of the parties, time and cost leak away, and the erroneous certified copy may continue to circulate as the basis for enforcement. Even so, the foregoing answer is maintained. The possibility of waste pointed out by the counterargument is not erased, but determining the effect of the correction in a state where transmission is unconfirmed is a separate question.
Returning to the synthetic scene, the certified copy contains an error in the designation of the parties, and part of a separate claim does not appear in the disposition. If the foregoing error is confirmed to be a mistake in indication, it becomes an object of rectification; and if the following omission is confirmed to be not an omission in judgment but an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself, it is classified through the channel of supplementary adjudication. Conversely, where the disputed content is not a mistake in indication but a change in substantive judgment and therefore does not fall within the statutory objects of rectification, that channel is blocked. This scene has no year, amount, or start date set, so only the records of the original judgment, the prayer for relief, the application for rectification, the omitted disposition, and the course of the appeal remain as material for decision.
Accordingly, the conclusion permitted by this section remains at the separation of the three boundaries. The channel opens where a clear mistake in indication is handled by rectification and a claim omitted from adjudication is handled by continued adjudication; rectification does not reach a dispute demanding a change in substantive judgment; and an error whose nature is unconfirmed remains undetermined. The limit that transmission cannot be determined by internal correction alone is also observed together. Still, by this distinction alone the results of actual service and enforcement cannot be determined, and the undetermined items reflect a lack of materials rather than an immediate absence of relief. Matters that cannot be decided from the scene remain as they are.
5.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
If one carries forward unchanged the attitude of supplementing an omission of a costs judgment ex officio (by the court's own authority) or upon application, while observing the rules on effect where a valid appeal is taken, the question that now remains is where and how the corrected content should appear in the documents that others read. This question is confronted concretely in the scene where the certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A contains a clerical error in the designation of the parties, and part of the separate claim does not appear in the dispositive part.
As to this question, Article 211 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act prescribes by its text the manner of communicating a rectification order. It declares: "(2) A rectification order shall be appended to the original and certified copies of the judgment. Provided, however, that where it cannot be appended to the certified copy, a certified copy of the order shall be prepared and served upon the parties." The actor indicated by this text is the court that made the rectification; the act is appending that order to the original and certified copies of the judgment; and the condition is the case where, when it cannot be appended to the certified copy, a certified copy of the order is prepared and served upon the parties. What is meant here by 'the notation of the rectification' is the manner of linking the corrected content to the judgment document.
The reason these two routes prescribed by the text must be distinguished is that the result of the communication differs. One is the manner of appending the corrected content to the existing judgment document so that it reads as a single document; the other is the manner of sending a certified copy of the order itself to the parties when appending is impossible. In either case, what the statute requires is that the content of the rectification order remains in the document that reached the parties, and the mere circumstance that the fact of the correction has been recorded within the court cannot be regarded as completing that communication. What this distinction settles is only the form of communication; it does not newly establish the criteria for determining which errors are subject to rectification.
The strongest counterargument aims at the point that a defect in the form of communication should not override the substance of the rectification. It is an accusation of waste to require a separate procedure for contesting when a manifestly unjust conclusion can be set right by a minor correction, and where the content to be corrected is clear, if a flaw of form is invoked to treat the communication itself as though it were void, the party in need of correction suffers loss. Yet the disadvantage of this counterargument also remains as it stands. Even if the form may be relaxed, whether the communication occurred and what the content to be corrected is must each be verified separately.
Among the facts revealed in the synthetic scene, those relevant to this question are that the certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A retains a clerical error in the designation of the parties, and that part of the separate claim does not appear in the dispositive part. These facts alone cannot determine whether the error is an error of notation or an error of adjudication, and accordingly it is not yet settled whether the matter is to be sent to rectification or to continued proceedings in the action.
What this section permits is no more than distinguishing in two branches the manner of communication of a rectification order and confirming it, and excluding the practice of concluding the matter solely on the basis of the internal fact of correction, without any confirmation that the communication took place. The task of verifying whether the rectification content was communicated, by appending it to the original and certified copies of the judgment or, where that is impossible, by serving a certified copy of the order upon the parties, and the task of discerning the nature of the error and choosing the next procedure, remain separate. Here, which error is subject to rectification, or on what materials is the next procedure to be chosen?