Summary
Obvious errors in expression, unadjudicated claims, and dissatisfaction with the determination must be distinguished, and the relationship between a challenge to a correction decision and an appeal on the merits must be confirmed.
6.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
경정으로 고칠 자리는 기록에서 직접 찾아낸다. 앞 절에서 경정결정은 원본·정본에 덧붙이고 불가능한 정본에는 결정 정본의 송달 방식으로 전달한다고 확인한 바 있다. 전달이 끝난 뒤 남는 물음은 이 통로가 실제로 열리는 조건이다. 원고 A가 받은 판결 정본에는 당사자 표시의 오기가 있고 별도 청구 일부는 주문에 나타나지 않는다. 잘못의 종류를 잘못 부르면 고칠 기회도 다른 문으로 들어간다. 그래서 이 장면에서 문제의 자리가 어디인지부터 가려야 한다. 오류의 위치는 표시·청구 누락·판단 내용 중 문제가 있는 자리를 뜻한다.
해당 문언은 두 갈래의 절차를 나란히 두고 있다. 민사소송법 제212조는 "법원이 청구의 일부에 대하여 재판을 누락한 경우에 그 청구부분에 대하여는 그 법원이 계속하여 재판한다"고 정하고 있다(민사소송법 제212조). 이 문언은 청구의 일부에 대한 재판 자체가 빠진 경우를 다룬다. 그 청구부분은 법원이 계속하여 다루게 되며, 새로 별도의 소를 낼 필요가 없다는 절차가 여기에 대응한다. 반면 민사소송법 제211조는 "경정결정에 대하여는 즉시항고를 할 수 있다"고 하면서도 "판결에 대하여 적법한 항소가 있는 때에는 그러하지 아니하다"고 덧붙인다(민사소송법 제211조). 여기서 주체는 경정결정을 받는 당사자이고, 행위는 즉시항고이며, 조건은 판결에 대한 적법한 항소의 유무다.
이 두 문언을 함께 놓아야 하는 이유는 문제가 있는 자리가 다르기 때문이다. 경정은 명백한 표시 오류를 바로잡는 자리에서 작동하고, 계속 재판은 청구 일부가 아예 재판되지 않은 자리에서 작동한다. 표시의 오기와 재판의 누락을 같은 것으로 취급하면 어느 쪽 절차가 맞는지 정할 수 없다. 그래서 오류의 위치를 표시·청구 누락·판단 내용 중 문제가 있는 자리로 나누어 보아야 한다. 판결문에 남은 문구가 당사자를 잘못 적은 것인지, 아니면 청구에 대한 판단 자체가 빠진 것인지에 따라 다음 절차가 갈린다. 여기까지가 이 구제가 작동하는 조건이다. 명백한 표시 오류는 경정으로, 재판이 빠진 청구는 계속 재판으로 각각 처리되는 경우에 한정된다.
여러 결함이 겹치면 단일한 분류가 어렵다. 명백히 부당한 결론을 작은 수정으로 바로잡을 수 있는데도 별도 불복을 요구하는 것은 낭비라는 지적이 나올 수 있다. 원고 A의 장면만 놓고 보면 당사자 표시의 오기와 빠진 청구가 함께 있다. 두 가지를 한 번에 끝내는 통로가 없어 보일 때 불편은 크다. 그렇더라도 경정신청이 본안 항소를 언제나 대신한다고 쓸 수는 없다. 민사소송법 제211조는 판결에 대한 적법한 항소가 있는 때 경정결정에 대한 즉시항고를 막는다(민사소송법 제211조). 즉시항고와 본안 항소는 다루는 대상이 다르며, 앞의 것만으로 뒤의 것을 대신한다고 할 수 없다.
합성 장면에서 이 물음에 해당하는 사실은 두 가지뿐이다. 당사자 표시의 오기가 있다는 점은 표시 오류의 자리에 놓인다. 별도 청구 일부가 주문에 나타나지 않았다는 점은 청구에 대한 재판 자체의 누락 가능성을 가리킨다. 그런데 기록에 오기가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확인되지 않았다. 이 경우 미확정으로 남는다. 다만 확인된 사실만으로도 경정의 통로와 계속 재판의 통로는 각각 열려 있다. 여기서 더 나아가 항소 경과를 확인할 수 없으므로 민사소송법 제211조 단서가 적용되는지도 이 장면만으로는 정할 수 없다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 명백한 표시 오류는 경정으로 고치고, 재판이 빠진 청구는 계속 재판으로 처리하는 경우에 이 구제는 작동한다. 허용하지 않는 결론은 이 구제가 모든 결함을 한 번에 끝낸다는 것이다. 판단 내용을 바꾸어 달라는 요구는 이 통로의 대상이 아니며, 경정신청이 본안 항소를 언제나 대신한다고 쓸 수도 없다. 오류의 위치를 표시·청구 누락·판단 내용 중 문제가 있는 자리로 나누어 보는 일이 먼저다.
6.2The Conditions That Block Relief
앞서 경정결정은 원본·정본에 덧붙이고 불가능한 정본에는 결정 정본의 송달 방식으로 전달한다는 정리를 받아들인 뒤, 지금은 그 다음 갈림길을 묻는다. 어떤 자료로 다음 절차를 고르는가? 그 통로가 닫히는 조건은 무엇인가? 원고 A가 받은 판결 정본에는 당사자 표시의 오기가 있고 별도 청구 일부는 주문에 나타나지 않는데, 이 두 가지 결함은 서로 다른 자리에 놓여 있다.
이번 물음에 해당하는 원문은 경정결정에 대한 불복의 통로를 정한 조항이다. 민사소송법 제211조 제3항은 "③경정결정에 대하여는 즉시항고를 할 수 있다. 다만, 판결에 대하여 적법한 항소가 있는 때에는 그러하지 아니하다."고 선언한다. 여기서 주체는 경정결정에 불복하려는 당사자이고, 행위는 즉시항고이며, 조건은 판결에 대한 적법한 항소의 유무이다. 다시 말해 적법한 항소가 이미 걸려 있는 때에는 경정결정을 따로 즉시항고로 다툴 수 없다는 문언이다.
이 문언과 이 절의 결론을 이으면 오류의 위치를 가르는 일이 왜 선행되는지 드러난다. 경정의 법정 대상은 명백한 표시 오류이고, 실체 판단의 변경은 그 대상에 들어가지 않는다. 따라서 다투는 내용이 표시 오류가 아니라 판단 내용의 변경이라면 경정 요건을 충족하지 못하므로 경정에 의한 구제 통로는 닫힌다. 오류가 청구에 대한 재판 자체의 누락으로 확인되면 민사소송법 제212조 제1항은 "①법원이 청구의 일부에 대하여 재판을 누락한 경우에 그 청구부분에 대하여는 그 법원이 계속하여 재판한다."고 정하여 계속 재판의 통로가 따로 열린다.
가장 강한 반론은 이런 구분이 결과적으로 낭비를 낳는다고 겨눈다. 여러 결함이 겹치면 단일한 분류가 어려운데, 명백히 부당한 결론을 작은 수정으로 바로잡을 수 있음에도 별도의 불복 절차를 요구하는 것은 절차를 늘릴 뿐이라는 비판이다. 그러나 이 비판이 겨냥하는 불편을 인정하면서도 결론을 바꿀 수는 없다. 경정신청이 본안 항소를 언제나 대신한다고 쓸 수는 없기 때문이다. 경정은 표시의 잘못을 고치는 통로이고 본안 항소는 판단 내용을 다투는 통로이므로, 둘 중 하나가 늘 다른 하나를 흡수한다고 말할 수 없다.
합성 장면에 놓인 결함을 앞의 조건과 대조하면 구분이 실제 판단에 어떻게 작용하는지 보인다. 당사자 표시의 오기는 표시의 잘못에 해당하여 경정의 대상이 되지만, 별도 청구 일부가 주문에 나타나지 않은 사정은 청구에 대한 재판 자체의 누락인 것으로 확인되면 추가재판의 통로로 분류한다. 다만 오류가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확인되지 않은 경우에는 미확정으로 남는다. 장면이 연도·금액·기산일이나 판결 결과를 정하지 않았으므로 이 절의 판단은 명시한 조건부 구별에 한정되고, 실제 사건의 사실·송달·이행 결과나 승패·회수·현장 효과는 확정할 수 없다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 오류의 위치를 표시·청구 누락·판단 내용 중 하나로 특정할 수 있고 그 특정이 앞의 조건에 부합할 때에만 해당 통로를 고를 수 있으며, 법정 요건 중 하나라도 충족되지 않으면 그 구제 통로는 닫힌다. 그 밖의 경우, 이를테면 통로의 수행이나 실제 성과를 단정하는 결론은 이 절이 허용하지 않는다.
6.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
앞 단계까지의 논의는 경정결정을 원본과 정본에 덧붙이고, 거둘 수 없는 정본에는 결정 정본을 보내는 방식으로 전한다는 한 문장으로만 이어받는다. 그 결론에 이어 이 글의 물음은 자료가 없어 다음 절차를 확정할 수 없을 때 그 경계를 어디에 두는가이다. 원고 A가 받은 판결 정본에는 당사자 표시의 오기가 있고 별도 청구 일부는 주문에 나타나지 않아, 정정의 문인지 계속 심리의 문인지가 먼저 갈린다. (민사소송법 제211조; 민사소송법 제212조)
이 물음에 해당하는 문언 두 개는 서로 다른 자리를 겨눈다. 민사소송법 제212조 제1항은 "법원이 청구의 일부에 대하여 재판을 누락한 경우" 그 부분을 같은 법원이 계속해 심리하도록 정하고 있다(민사소송법 제212조). 민사소송법 제211조 제3항은 경정결정에 즉시항고가 가능하되 "판결에 대하여 적법한 항소가 있는 때에는" 예외로 둔다(민사소송법 제211조). 이 문언들이 가리키는 주체는 판결을 내린 법원이며, 다루는 행위는 판결문 자체의 모양을 고치는 일과 아직 심리하지 않은 청구를 이어가는 일이다.
이 문언에 근거해 이 글의 결론은 오류가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확인되지 않은 사항을, 아예 판단할 수 없는 불능과 구별해 미확정으로 남기는 것이다. 여기서 미확정이란 판단 재료가 아직 특정되지 않은 상태를 뜻하며, 불능은 재료를 모아도 판정이 구조적으로 성립하지 않는 상태를 뜻한다. 표시 오류와 판단 누락을 나누는 일은 그 두 상태를 나누는 첫 단계이고, 이 구별이 바로 고칠 문을 고르는 기준이 된다. 이 구별을 건너뛰면 명백한 표시만 다듬어야 할 사안에 실체 판단 변경을 요구하는 불복을 붙이게 된다.
가장 강한 반론은 두 결함이 한 판결 정본에 겹칠 때 단일한 분류가 어렵다는 점과, 작은 수정으로 바로잡을 명백히 부당한 결론에 별도 불복까지 요구하는 것은 낭비라는 점을 함께 겨눈다. 원고 A의 장면에서 당사자 표시 오기와 별도 청구의 누락이 동시에 나타나니, 어느 쪽으로도 한 번에 환원하기 어렵다는 지적은 그 불편을 정확히 짚는다. 그 불리한 점을 지우지 않더라도 이 글은 경정신청이 본안 항소를 언제나 대신한다고 쓸 수는 없다는 답을 유지한다. 경정의 문이 열려 있어도 그 문이 본안 항소를 대신한다고 일반화할 수는 없기 때문이다.
이 장면에서 이 글의 물음과 관련한 사실은 판결 정본에 당사자 표시의 오기가 있고 별도 청구 일부가 주문에 나타나지 않았다는 점이다. 표시 오기는 경정으로 보완할 통로에, 주문에서 빠진 청구는 계속 재판으로 보완할 통로에 각각 대응한다(민사소송법 제211조; 민사소송법 제212조). 다만 장면은 문제의 오류가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지까지는 특정하지 않으므로, 그 자리는 미확정으로 남는다. 만일 누락이 판단의 누락이 아니라 청구에 대한 재판 자체의 누락으로 확인되면 추가재판의 통로로 분류하며, 그때의 분류는 새로운 사건 사실이 아니라 조건을 하나 바꾼 검사에 불과하다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 오류의 위치가 표시에 있는지 판단 내용에 있는지 자료로 특정되지 않은 항목을 불능과 섞지 않고 미확정으로 남긴다는 좁은 범위에 머문다. 명백한 표시 오류는 경정으로, 빠진 청구는 계속 재판으로 각각 나누어 처리할 수 있다는 조건만이 확인되며, 그 밖의 판단 변경이나 승패·이행 결과는 이 글이 확정하지 않는다. 판결 원본과 청구취지, 경정신청 기록이 갖추어져도 오류의 성격이 드러나지 않으면 그 항목은 미확정인 채로 남는다.
6.4The Records Needed for Determination
경정결정은 원본·정본에 덧붙이고 불가능한 정본에는 결정 정본의 송달 방식으로 전달한다는 점까지를 전제로 삼고, 이제 고쳐 받은 자료가 아니라 고치기 전에 무엇을 근거로 다음 절차를 골라야 하는지가 남는다. 이 장면에서 두 결함은 서로 다른 자리에 있다. 하나는 누구를 당사자로 표시했는지의 오류이고 다른 하나는 청구에 대한 주문이 아예 없는 경우이다. 그래서 어떤 자료로 다음 절차를 고르는가라는 물음은 곧 그 판정에 어떤 기록이 필요한가라는 물음이 된다. 오류의 위치, 즉 표시·청구 누락·판단 내용 중 문제가 있는 자리를 가리키는 데는 정해진 기록이 쓰인다.
이 절에서 다룰 문언은 그 기록의 역할을 둘로 나누어 보여 준다. 민사소송법 제212조는 "①법원이 청구의 일부에 대하여 재판을 누락한 경우에 그 청구부분에 대하여는 그 법원이 계속하여 재판한다."고 규정한다. 이 문언은 주체를 그 법원으로, 행위를 재판의 누락에 대한 계속 재판으로, 조건을 청구의 일부에 대한 재판의 누락으로 특정한다. 민사소송법 제211조는 "③경정결정에 대하여는 즉시항고를 할 수 있다. 다만, 판결에 대하여 적법한 항소가 있는 때에는 그러하지 아니하다."고 하여 경정결정에 대한 불복 수단과 본안 항소의 관계를 함께 규율한다. 여기서는 이 두 항만을 문제 삼는다.
이 두 문언을 기록과 함께 놓으면 단계 판정의 기준이 분명해진다. 판결 원본과 청구취지를 대조한 결과 당사자 표시의 오기가 보이면 그 자리는 경정의 대상이고, 청구취지에 있는데 누락한 주문으로 확인된 부분은 제212조가 정한 계속 재판의 자리이다. 경정신청에 무엇을 담았는지와 항소 경과에 적법한 항소가 들어 있는지는 경정결정에 대한 즉시항고가 열리는지 여부를 가른다. 이런 구별은 장식이 아니라 정해진 기록만으로 단계를 판정하기 위해 필요한 선이다. 없는 기록을 추정으로 메우면 오류의 위치를 가리는 일이 되고, 그 자리는 곧 통로의 선택까지 바꾼다.
표시 오류와 청구 누락이 한 판결 안에 함께 있다면 경정만으로 끝난다고 말하기 어렵고, 무엇을 먼저 고치는지에 따라 소요되는 시간과 절차의 부담이 달라진다. 명백히 부당한 결론을 작은 수정으로 바로잡을 수 있는데도 별도의 불복을 요구하는 것은 낭비라는 지적은 이 절에서 사라지지 않는다. 민사소송법 제211조는 판결에 대하여 적법한 항소가 있는 때에는 경정결정에 즉시항고를 할 수 없다고 한정한다. 반대 방향으로 경정신청이 항소를 언제나 대신한다는 규칙이 도출되는 것도 아니다. 반론이 지적한 불편은 남기고, 기록에 적법한 항소가 있는지 확인하는 방식으로만 답을 유지한다.
합성 장면으로 돌아가면, 여기서 확인할 수 있는 사실은 두 가지뿐이다. 판결 원본에서 표시의 오류가 확인되고 청구취지에 존재하는 청구가 주문에서 누락된 것으로 확인된다면, 전자는 경정으로, 후자는 계속 재판으로 각각 나뉘고, 이때 경정의 법정 통로는 열린다. 경정신청에 무엇이 담겼고 항소 경과에 적법한 항소가 있는지는 이 장면이 정하지 않았으므로 미확정으로 남는다. 판단 누락이 아니라 청구에 대한 재판 자체의 누락으로 확인되면 추가재판의 통로로 분류한다. 오류가 표시의 잘못인지 판단의 잘못인지 확인되지 않은 경우도 마찬가지로 미확정이다. 자료가 없다는 사실은 구제 불능이 아니라 아직 분류하지 못한 상태이다.
따라서 이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 판결 원본·청구취지·경정신청·누락한 주문·항소 경과에 기록된 자료만으로 단계를 판정하고, 없는 기록은 추정으로 메우지 않는다. 이 결론이 허용하지 않는 것은 그보다 넓은 주장이다. 기록을 넘어서는 사정으로 단계를 바꾸거나, 자료가 덜 모였다는 이유만으로 통로를 닫거나, 경정신청 하나가 본안 항소를 언제까지나 대신한다고 보는 것은 이 절의 결론 밖이다.
6.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
The question addressed in this section is which materials should be used to choose between those doors. If one cannot locate the position of the error—whether in the notation, the omission of a claim, or the content of the determination—the routes of rectification and further trial are sought with the two exchanged. The records requirements set out in the previous section, namely the original judgment, the purport of the claim, the application for rectification, the omitted part of the operative provisions, and the course of the appeal, are needed for that reason as well. This adjudication rests on those records, and without records the conclusion remains undetermined. The analysis now turns to what distinctions the routes prescribed by the two provisions require.
Article 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "Where the court has failed to render a judgment on a part of a claim, the court shall continue the trial on that portion of the claim" (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act). The subject referred to by this language is the court that pronounced the judgment, the object is the portion of the claim that was already raised as part of the claim but was omitted from the adjudication, and the act is the continued trial on that portion. The condition is the failure to render a judgment on a part of the claim. This is distinguished from a case in which the content of the determination is not to one's liking.
Article 211(3) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "An immediate appeal may be taken against a rectification order" (Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act), but makes an exception where a lawful appeal has been taken against the judgment. In other words, the route for contesting a rectification order and an appeal on the merits are not always open in parallel. Accordingly, the two-stage determination must be divided. First, one must confirm whether the error is a mistake in notation or an omission of the adjudication itself; then one must distinguish whether the remaining complaint seeks a change in the substantive determination. Only when the former confirmation is complete is the subsequent choice of procedure settled.
When several defects overlap in a single judgment—for example, a scene in which a misstatement in the designation of the parties coexists with a portion of a separate claim omitted from the operative provisions—a single classification becomes difficult. There is also the criticism that requiring a separate challenge when a manifestly unjust conclusion can be corrected by a minor amendment is a procedural waste. The loss targeted by this counterargument is time and resources, and the value it asserts is swift and complete relief. The conclusion nevertheless stands. While leaving in place the disadvantage pointed out by the counterargument, a demand for change that does not fall within the statutory object of rectification cannot be accommodated through rectification.
Taking only the facts corresponding to this question in the synthetic scene, the certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A contains a misstatement in the designation of the parties, and a portion of a separate claim does not appear in the operative provisions. The former appears closer to a mistake in notation; the latter, if confirmed to be an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself, becomes the object of continued trial. Yet which route each of these two will take must be confirmed by the records prescribed in the previous section. Unless it is confirmed whether the error is a mistake in notation or a mistake in the determination, the adjudication remains undetermined. If that omission is confirmed to be not an omission in the determination but an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself, it is classified as falling within the route of further trial.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow. A manifest error in notation can be corrected by rectification; a claim omitted from the adjudication is classified under the route by which the court continues the trial; and if the remaining complaint seeks a change in the substantive determination, it does not fall within the statutory object of rectification. By contrast, it is not permissible to hold that a single application for rectification can substitute for an appeal on the merits. Nor is it a conclusion of this section to declare outright that a case in which, for want of records, the position of the error cannot be ascertained is immediately beyond relief.
6.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
The previous stage dealt only with the distinction of materials as to which materials to use in choosing the next procedure, while the present stage shifts the question to how the defects that appear overlapped in selecting those materials are to be named. In this scene, a misstatement in the notation and the omission of a portion of a claim appear together. If the two problems are bundled under one name, which route opens changes as well. The question is therefore narrowed to how, in this scene where the two defects overlap, the object of rectification and the object of an appeal on the merits are to be divided.
The provision supplying the language that answers this question is found in Article 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. That provision states: "(1) Where the court has failed to render a judgment on a part of a claim, the court shall continue the trial on that portion of the claim." (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act). The subject referred to by this language is the court in charge of that claim, the act is the continuation of an already commenced trial, and the condition is a case in which the adjudication of a part of the claim has been omitted. The omission spoken of here means a situation in which judgment was pronounced without adjudicating a part of the claim to the end. It is a provision addressing a different place from the problem of correcting notation. Within the scope corresponding to this section, this provision deals only with the omission of the adjudication of a part of a claim. Cases of dissatisfaction with the content of the determination are not dealt with by this language.
What connects the language of Article 212(1) with the conclusion of this section is the question of what the object of the trial was. If a portion of the claim does not appear in the operative provisions, no judgment has been pronounced on that portion, and therefore the court continues the trial on that portion of the claim. A misstatement in the designation of the parties, by contrast, remains a problem of correcting the notation of a judgment already pronounced. The reason the two must be distinguished is that the object to be corrected differs. One fills in an adjudication not yet rendered; the other corrects the wording of a judgment already rendered. If rectification is the route for correcting an error in notation, the omission of a portion of a claim is classified not under that route but under the route of continued trial. Even if the two problems appear together in the same judgment, a procedure suited to each object must be sought. Here, rectification is the route for correcting the notation of a judgment already pronounced, while the trial of a part of a claim is the route for completing an adjudication not yet finished.
Requiring a separate challenge when a manifestly unjust conclusion can be corrected by a minor amendment is waste. That counterargument points to the inconvenience and delay of having to tread the two routes separately, from the standpoint of the parties to the lawsuit, when a defect to be corrected is visible to the eye. In a scene where an error in notation and an omission coexist, if the certified copy is set right by a minor amendment alone, a separate distinction of procedures seems unnecessary. Rectification, however, is a route open only with respect to the specific object of an error in notation, and the omission of the adjudication of a part of a claim is the object of the continued trial prescribed in Article 212(1). The inconvenience pointed out by the counterargument is acknowledged, but that inconvenience does not become a ground for merging the objects of the two routes themselves. A challenge to a rectification order and an appeal on the merits are procedures contesting different objects, so one cannot say that one always substitutes for the other. If used that way, instead of removing the inconvenience the counterargument points out, one would remove the distinction of objects as well.
Contrasting this question with only the facts that can be confirmed in this scene, the certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A contains a misstatement in the designation of the parties, and a portion of a separate claim does not appear in the operative provisions. Under the standard examined above, the misstatement in the designation of the parties is a mistake in notation and is placed in the route of rectification; the fact that a portion of a separate claim does not appear in the operative provisions, if confirmed to be an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself, is classified under the route of further trial. Yet this scene alone does not settle whether that omission is a mere omission in the determination or an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself. The same remains true where it is not confirmed whether the error is a mistake in notation or a mistake in the determination. The materials needed for confirmation are the records of the original judgment, the purport of the claim, the application for rectification, the omitted operative provisions, and the course of the appeal. Until these materials make clear where the position of the error lies among the notation, the omission of a claim, and the content of the determination, it cannot be determined which route is open. Accordingly, what can be adjudicated in this scene extends only to the point that the two defects concern different objects and that there is a procedure suited to each object.
The conclusion permitted by this section is that the route diverges according to where the defect lies. If it is a misstatement in notation, it is placed in the route of rectification; if it is an omission of the adjudication of a part of the claim itself, it is placed in the route of continued trial. Because the two routes deal with different objects, one cannot say that an application for rectification always substitutes for an appeal on the merits. If, however, the position of the error has not been settled, which route applies is not settled either. The settled conclusion is that the two objects are classified into different procedures, and how that classification is completed remains open.
6.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
In this scene, the two defects suffered by A are located in different places. The former is the problem that the notation written in the judgment diverges from reality; the latter is the problem that the operative provisions on the claim itself are missing. Hence the question of this section is which materials to use to choose the next procedure.
To answer this question, the language of the two provisions is first set side by side. Article 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "(1) Where the court has failed to render a judgment on a part of a claim, the court shall continue the trial on that portion of the claim." (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act). The subject referred to by this language is the court that rendered the judgment, the act is the omission of the adjudication of a part of the claim, and the condition is that court's continuing the trial on the omitted portion of the claim. That is to say, the place this provision addresses is not the notation but the place where the claim itself is missing. The language does not at the same time prescribe how other defects are to be handled.
The reason for observing these two distinctions touches on the conclusion of this section. Errors in notation, untried claims, and dissatisfaction with the determination each have a different place where the problem lies, and if the place differs, the materials pointing to the next procedure differ as well. As examined above, if the operative provisions for a portion of the claim are empty, Article 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Act has the court continue the trial on that portion of the claim. A manifest error in notation, by contrast, remains an object of rectification. Dissatisfaction seeking to change the content of the determination, however, is not a mistake in notation and therefore does not fall within the statutory object of rectification. Here the relationship between a challenge to a rectification order and an appeal on the merits overlaps. Under the language providing that "(3) An immediate appeal against a ruling may be taken against a rectification order; provided, however, that this shall not apply where a lawful appeal has been taken against the judgment" (Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act), a rectification order becomes the object of an immediate appeal against a ruling, but if a lawful appeal has been taken against the judgment, that path is closed.
The counterargument that a single classification becomes difficult when several defects overlap aims precisely at this point. The certified copy received by A contains both a misstatement in the designation of the parties and the omission of a portion of a separate claim. The counterargument points out that if a single application for rectification can correct the notation and swiftly supplement the remaining operative provisions as well, then requiring a separate procedure for challenge when a manifestly unjust conclusion can be corrected by a minor amendment is waste. If the procedures diverge, A must file one more application, and the cost of groping for which path is right remains as well. Even if this disadvantage is erased, however, the conclusion stands. So long as the language separately prescribes the place where an immediate appeal against a ruling and an appeal on the merits meet, it cannot be asserted that a single application absorbs defects of both natures.
The facts relevant to this question in this scene are two. One is the misstatement in the designation of the parties; the other is the fact that a portion of a separate claim does not appear in the operative provisions. Contrasting them by the position of the error, the former points to the place of a mistake in notation, and the latter points to the place where the operative provisions on the claim are missing. This scene alone, however, cannot settle whether the misstatement is a mistake in notation or a mistake in the content of the determination. If that distinction remains unconfirmed, it must be left undetermined. The year, amount, and commencement date not appearing in the scene are unsettled.
The conclusion permitted by this section is narrow. It extends only to dividing the position of the error into the notation, the omission of a claim, and the content of the determination, and to confirming that the materials for choosing the next procedure differ according to that position. What is decided here is the distinction between a manifest error in notation falling within the statutory object of rectification and the route of continuing the trial on a claim omitted from the adjudication, together with confirming the place where an immediate appeal against a ruling on a rectification order and an appeal on the merits can meet. If, beyond this scope, one writes that an application for rectification always substitutes for an appeal on the merits, this conclusion does not hold. Meanwhile, this section deals only with which materials to use to choose the next procedure, and does not draw in other questions in the same section or the independent arguments of the preceding and following sections.
6.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
The previous section proceeded on the premise that manifest errors in notation, untried claims, and dissatisfaction with the determination must be separated and that the relationship between a challenge to a rectification order and an appeal on the merits must be confirmed. How this conclusion connects with that premise is the present question. The certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A contains a misstatement in the designation of the parties, and a portion of a separate claim does not appear in the operative provisions, but the two defects do not lie in the same place. Only by distinguishing the place does it diverge whether the matter is to be corrected by rectification or left to continued trial.
Among the relevant language, Article 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that where the court has failed to render a judgment on a part of a claim, the court shall continue the trial on that portion of the claim (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act). This language fixes the subject as that court, the object as the omission of the adjudication of a part of the claim, and the handling as the continued trial on that portion of the claim. What is spoken of here is not correcting what has already been pronounced, but taking up and handling in succession a claim that was not addressed at the outset. The language does not name that route further trial, but the shape of the handling subject and of the object differs, and it is therefore separated from rectification.
A rectification order is appended to the original and certified copies, and where this is impossible, it is conveyed by service of the certified copy of the order. On this premise, the problem is why the two routes must be examined separately. An error in notation leaves the content of the determination as pronounced untouched and goes no further than correcting the notation of the document, whereas an untried claim is the work of continuing and creating a part on which no determination exists at all. Accordingly, the premise received from the previous section leads to the meaning that there is not a single recovery procedure but that the route diverges according to the position of the error. Dissatisfaction with the content of the determination itself lies in neither of these two and must therefore be treated separately.
This counterargument points to the loss that requiring a separate challenge even as to a manifestly unjust conclusion that can be corrected by a minor amendment is waste. It is provided, however, that "this shall not apply where a lawful appeal has been taken against the judgment" (Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act). That is, since a challenge to a rectification order does not open where there is a lawful appeal against the judgment, it cannot be read as extending to make an application for rectification substitute for an appeal.
In the synthetic scene, the misstatement in the designation of the parties in the certified copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A falls on the axis of a mistake in notation. The fact that a portion of a separate claim does not appear in the operative provisions is not settled by that axis alone. If confirmed to be an omission of the adjudication of the claim itself, it is classified under the route of further trial. Conversely, a complaint seeking to change the content of the determination, with the position of the error lying in the content of the determination, is not an object of these two routes. The scene contains no year, amount, or date from which a time period runs, and the effective point is therefore unsettled as well.
Accordingly, the permitted conclusion extends to ascertaining the position of the error and placing errors in notation in the route of rectification and claims omitted from the trial in the route of continued trial, respectively, and to confirming that a challenge to a rectification order does not open where a lawful appeal has been taken against the judgment. Correcting a manifest error in notation by rectification while jumping to the conclusion that such an application for rectification always substitutes for an appeal on the merits is not the conclusion of this section. Conversely, extending the object of rectification so as to include dissatisfaction with the determination, or handling an untried claim as a correction of the notation by a rectification order, is likewise not permitted. How do the language of Article 211 and Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act support this conclusion?
6.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
The preceding analysis stage adopts the premise that a rectification order is appended to the original and the transcript, and that where a transcript cannot be prepared, it is conveyed by service of the transcript of the order. This premise only fixes the manner of conveyance; it does not itself decide which error is to be corrected through which procedure. The question now is how the relevant source text applies to the channel for supplementation through rectification and additional adjudication. This question arises from the circumstances that require distinguishing manifest clerical errors, unadjudicated claims, and dissatisfaction with the reasoning, and confirming the relationship between a challenge to a rectification order and an appeal on the merits.
Among the relevant texts, Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act provides as follows: "Where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim, the court shall continue to adjudicate that part of the claim." Here the actor is that court, the act is the failure to adjudicate a part of the claim, and the condition is that such failure has been confirmed. The result prescribed by the text is continued adjudication of the omitted part of the claim. Because this text does not address dissatisfaction with the content of the determination, this channel cannot be applied as it stands to a challenge to the determination.
The reason the subject matter of rectification and the subject matter of additional adjudication are divided is that the location of the error lies in different places. Where the defect lies in the designation, the channel of rectification, which corrects the designation, applies; where the adjudication of the claim itself is missing, the channel of continued adjudication applies. Dissatisfaction seeking to alter the content of the determination, however, falls outside the scope of clerical error as defined by rectification. The relevant text provides the basis for maintaining this distinction, and it does not extend to items the text does not cover so as to create new requirements or exceptions. Which parts of a final and conclusive judgment bar renewed contention remains a separate question.
The counterargument that a single classification is difficult where several defects overlap has force. Where an erroneous entry in the designation of a party and a failure of adjudication appear together in one transcript of a judgment, one readily expects both to be corrected at once by a single application. If the approach is made to disappoint such an expectation, one is charged with waste, in that a manifestly unjust conclusion can be corrected by a minor amendment yet a separate challenge is required. While acknowledging this inconvenience, the relevant text maintains the answer that a rectification application cannot be written as always substituting for an appeal on the merits. An immediate appeal against a ruling on a rectification order and a lawful appeal against a judgment remain, in terms of the text, distinct routes, and it is not stipulated that one substitutes for the other.
An erroneous entry corresponds to a defect in the designation, and a separate part of the claim omitted from the dispositive portion is read as a sign of a failure to adjudicate the claim. Yet on the basis of this scene alone, one cannot determine whether the error arose from the designation in the original of the judgment or whether the determination itself is erroneous. In such a case the location of the error remains undetermined, and if it is confirmed to be not an omission of determination but a failure to adjudicate the claim itself, it is classified under the channel of additional adjudication.
What this section permits is to take the relevant source text alone as the basis for adjudging the channel for supplementation through rectification and additional adjudication, and to apply only the texts within the scope of that source. It is not permitted to extend the text through the reasons for judgment so as to open a path to correcting the content of the determination, or to generalize that a rectification application substitutes for an appeal on the merits. Dissatisfaction challenging the determination is not accommodated by this channel, and a deficiency in the actual records is merely undetermined and does not in itself mean that no remedy is available.
6.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
Taking that conclusion as the premise, the question that follows is what remains to be separately adjudged within the channel for supplementation through rectification and additional adjudication. In this scene, one must discern the location of the error—that is, whether the problem lies in the designation, the omission of a claim, or the content of the reasoning—before the next procedure can be chosen.
The text that answers this question is found in Article 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. It provides that "where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim, the court shall continue to adjudicate that part of the claim" (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act). The actor referred to by this provision is the court that rendered the judgment, the act is the continued adjudication of the omitted part of the claim, and the condition is a failure to adjudicate a part of the claim. The omission spoken of here refers to a case in which a part of the claim not appearing in the dispositive portion has received no adjudication at all, and it occupies a place separate from an erroneous entry in the designation or dissatisfaction with the content of the reasoning.
On the basis of this text, the conclusion follows that the channel diverges according to the location of the error. A defect in the designation is subject to correction by rectification; a part where the adjudication of the claim itself is missing is handled by the continued adjudication prescribed in Article 212(1); and dissatisfaction with the content of the determination enters neither channel as it stands. The reason these two concepts must be distinguished is that, whereas the former concerns correcting the designation in the authenticated copy received by the plaintiff, the latter concerns the court rehearing and rendering judgment upon the part of the claim that was not adjudicated. Even where the defect appears to be the same, if the location is indicated differently, the next procedure differs.
The counterargument that most strongly unsettles this distinction begins from the point that a single classification is difficult where several defects overlap. From the plaintiff's position, if a separate challenge is required even though a manifestly unjust conclusion can be corrected by a minor amendment, that procedure feels like waste. Yet it cannot be written that a rectification application always substitutes for an appeal on the merits. The provision states that "(3) An immediate appeal may be taken against a rectification order; provided, that this shall not apply where a lawful appeal against a judgment is pending" (Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act). This proviso bars an immediate appeal against a rectification order where a lawful appeal is pending; it is not a text declaring that a rectification application substitutes for an appeal.
Comparing this distinction with this scene yields two divisions. An erroneous entry in the designation of the party on the authenticated copy of the judgment falls under a defect in the designation and can be corrected by rectification; a separate part of the claim not appearing in the dispositive portion, if confirmed to be a failure to adjudicate the claim itself, is classified under the channel of additional adjudication. Meanwhile, where it is not confirmed whether the error lies in the designation or in the determination, and where the consequences of service and performance, absent from the synthetic scene, cannot be determined on this material alone, those unverified matters are not filled in with conjecture; only the parts that meet the confirmed conditions remain within this distinction.
The conclusion this section permits is the narrow distinction of dividing the location of the error into three branches—placing clerical errors with rectification, a failure of adjudication itself with continued adjudication, and dissatisfaction with the content of the reasoning with other channels—and the detailed subdivisions within the stage are limited to the conditions marked as cases that work, cases that are barred, and cases that are undetermined. What this distinction does not permit is a conclusion that writes that a rectification application always substitutes for an appeal on the merits, or that inserts a new step outside the stated conditions.
6.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
The preceding section fixed the materials for choosing the next procedure; it must now be examined in which place the error indicated by those materials lies.
The discussion begins with the text that fixes the channel of rectification. It provides: "(3) An immediate appeal may be taken against a rectification order; provided, that this shall not apply where a lawful appeal against a judgment is pending." This text prescribes both a means of challenge against the court that made the rectification order and an exception where a lawful appeal against the judgment itself is pending. That is, the rectification application and the challenge to the rectification order operate within the procedure for correcting clerical errors, while the appeal on the merits remains a separate channel for contesting the content of the determination. The two are not the same door.
The place where a separate part of the claim does not appear in the dispositive portion is different again. The actor this provision addresses is the court that rendered that judgment, the subject is a failure to adjudicate a part of the claim, and the effect is that the court shall continue to adjudicate. Unlike rectification, which corrects a clerical error, here there is a part of the claim from which adjudication was altogether missing, and the same court conducts the hearing on that part in continuation. Accordingly, the conditions under which this opens are those in which a manifest clerical error is handled by rectification and a claim omitted from adjudication is handled by continued adjudication, respectively.
The reason this rectification door does not open when one is dissatisfied with the content of the determination must be examined most sharply. It is because what is contested is not a clerical error but a change in the substantive determination, and therefore does not fall within the statutory subject matter of rectification. Here the dissatisfaction is aimed at the conclusion of the judgment being unjust, and if what is sought to be changed is that injustice turned in the opposite direction, that is a change in the substantive determination. The counterargument that a single classification is difficult where several defects overlap points out that it is waste to require a separate challenge when a manifestly unjust conclusion could be corrected by a minor amendment. That loss cannot be denied. Even so, it cannot be written that a rectification application always substitutes for an appeal on the merits. The condition under which this is barred is where the content contested is not a clerical error but a change in the substantive determination, so that it does not fall within the statutory subject matter of rectification.
Contrasting the two defects overlapping on the transcript of the judgment received by plaintiff A with the foregoing conditions yields a division. The erroneous entry in the designation of the party falls under a defect in the designation, so the location of the error lies in the "designation," and it can be handled as subject matter of rectification. That a separate part of the claim does not appear in the dispositive portion is not dissatisfaction with the content of the determination but a failure of adjudication, so the location of the error lies in the "omission of claim," and it goes to the channel of continued adjudication prescribed in Article 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. If, however, there is any part that cannot be determined from the records alone as belonging to which of the two defects, it remains undetermined. Undetermined means the case where it is not confirmed whether the error lies in the designation or in the determination.
The conclusion this section permits is to divide rectification, continued adjudication, and undetermined according to the location of the error and to state the conditions of each. What it does not permit is to bind the two channels into one sentence in the manner that a rectification application always substitutes for an appeal on the merits, nor is it to fill in unconfirmed facts with conjecture and thereby erase the undetermined. The circumstance that there is no material leaves the matter at undetermined, not at no remedy available.
6.12이 권의 결론과 남는 물음
After the arrangement in the preceding section—that a rectification order is appended to the original and the authenticated copy, and that where appending to the authenticated copy is impossible it is conveyed by service of an authenticated copy of the order—was completed, the remaining question is what is handed over to the next procedure. The question of this section lies in what materials are used to choose the next procedure. Before examining why the channel diverges according to the location of the problem, it is noted that this section is limited to the materials for procedure selection.
How a court receives a challenge to the rectification of a judgment is fixed by text. Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act opens the route of an immediate appeal against a rectification order, while making an exception where a lawful appeal against a judgment is pending (Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act). This text does not settle other issues; it only distinguishes the sequence and overlap of the two routes of challenge. Thus, whether the rectification order itself may be contested and whether the judgment on the merits may be contested occupy different places within the same sentence.
Once the foregoing condition is fixed, it becomes clear why it is necessary to divide the location of the error into designation, omission of claim, and content of the determination. An erroneous entry concerns not newly determining the content of the judgment but a place where the determination already made was incorrectly transcribed, whereas the omission of a claim concerns, unlike the transcription of the determination, a part from which adjudication was altogether missing. Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim, the court shall continue to adjudicate that part of the claim (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act). If the location of the error is fixed at whichever place among designation, omission of claim, and content of the determination is problematic, rectification opens at the place of the clerical error, and continued adjudication opens at the place of the omitted claim. By contrast, a dissatisfaction demanding a change in the content of the determination enters neither side; in that case all that remains is that an immediate appeal against a rectification order and an appeal against the judgment are separate channels.
The counterargument that it is waste to require a separate challenge when a manifestly unjust conclusion could be corrected by a minor amendment targets that point. Where, as on the authenticated copy of the judgment received by plaintiff A, an erroneous entry in the designation of a party and a separate claim omitted from the dispositive portion lie together, the temptation arises to finish with a single procedure. What the proviso to Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act prescribes, however, is that where a lawful appeal is pending, an immediate appeal against a rectification order does not open; it does not mean that a rectification application substitutes for an appeal on the merits. The inconvenience the counterargument points out remains as it is, yet it cannot be written that a rectification application always substitutes for an appeal on the merits. If the content contested is not a clerical error but a change in the substantive determination, so that it does not fall within the statutory subject matter of rectification, a separate challenge is necessary.
Only two facts are confirmed in the synthetic scene. The erroneous entry in the designation of a party appears close to the subject matter of the channel to be supplemented by rectification, and as for the separate claim not appearing in the dispositive portion, comparing the original of the judgment with the prayer for relief determines whether the adjudication itself is missing or only the determination is omitted. The original of the judgment, the prayer for relief, the rectification application, the omitted dispositive portion, and the course of the appeal are the confirming materials; and while it remains unconfirmed whether the error lies in the designation or in the determination, it is undetermined which channel is correct.
The conclusion this section permits is limited to selecting the materials for the next procedure according to the location of the error. A clerical error is viewed at the place of rectification, a claim omitted from adjudication at the place of continued adjudication, and a dissatisfaction demanding a change in the content of the determination is not received through the door of rectification. At the same time, a challenge to a rectification order must not be taken as substituting for a lawful appeal against the judgment. What is not permitted is to settle here even the scope of the effect of a final and conclusive judgment. The question this section hands over is precisely that point. Which parts of a final and conclusive judgment bar renewed contention?
Statutes referred to
Questions left open
- How far may materials outside the judgment be used in determining manifestness?
- What confusion does the parallel pursuit of rectification and challenge produce?
- How should costs be handled where the discovery of an omitted claim is delayed?