판결경정의 요건과 판단자료의 범위 — 대법원 2023. 8. 18.자 2022그779 결정 — = Requirements for Correction of Judgment and Scope of Judgment Materials — Supreme Court Decision 2022GUE779, August 18, 2023 —

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper examines the following issues related to the subject decision: ① If the calculation of the inheritance share for the defendant heirs is incorrect due to the omission of some heirs, and the amount is incorrect in the grounds and order of the judgment, does correcting the amount for the defendant heirs by considering the inheritance shares of the heirs not named as defendants satisfy the requirements for correction of judgment? In other words, does it fall under the category of a clear error due to an incorrect calculation as defined in Article 211, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act? ② Does the scope of errors subject to correction include errors arising from errors in the parties' claims, arguments, or submitted documents, in addition to errors caused by the court's negligence? ③ In determining whether an error is clear, whether materials submitted after the judgment can be considered in addition to the judgment itself or materials presented during the litigation? ④ How to appeal a decision to reject a request for correction of a judgment, and whether it is appropriate to acknowledge the grounds for special appeal in this case? The author presents the following views.
Regarding ①, based on the specific arguments presented by author, it is difficult to recognize grounds for a correction of judgment in this case.
Regarding ②, since the judgment was rendered with some of the heirs omitted due to the parties' fault, it is difficult to deem the judgment itself premised on the omitted heirs, and therefore, a correction based on the pronouncement of the judgment premised on the omitted heirs is not possible.
Regarding ③, the opposing parties A, B, C, and D are not disadvantaged, and there is no practical benefit in arguing the fact that there are additional heirs. Therefore, even if there was no opportunity to argue this, it is not an issue. However, since the judgment was rendered with some of the heirs omitted due to the parties' fault, it is difficult to deem the judgment premised on the omitted heirs, and therefore, a correction based on the pronouncement of the judgment premised on the omitted heirs is not possible.
Regarding ④, a normal appeal is unlikely to be accepted as a means of appeal against a decision to dismiss a motion for judgment correction, and a special appeal should be permitted. However, based on the specific arguments presented by author, this case is not a case where the decision to dismiss the application for correction was made without the applicant GAP being given any opportunity to submit the materials necessary for the original trial, as he had already submitted the materials necessary for the original trial. Furthermore, it is difficult to conclude that the judgment contained clear errors based on the materials presented throughout the entire trial, including those submitted after the judgment was pronounced. Therefore, it cannot be considered a case of violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 27 of the Constitution, and therefore, it is difficult to justify a special appeal.