근로에관한 소송
1. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim filed in the trial is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the counterclaim Defendant claimed a retirement allowance payment as the principal lawsuit. The counterclaim sought confirmation of the absence of the above retirement allowance payment obligation as the counterclaim. The court of first instance accepted the principal claim and rejected the counterclaim. The counterclaim appealeded against all the principal claim and counterclaim, but in the first instance, the counterclaim withdrawn the appeal against the principal claim.
Therefore, since only the part of the counterclaim claim is subject to the judgment of the court, only this part shall be judged.
2. The counterclaim Defendant asserts that the amendment of the purport of a claim by the counterclaim is unlawful, inasmuch as the grounds for a claim that did not have any obligation to pay retirement allowances and the grounds for a claim seeking return of unjust enrichment are not recognized as identical to the basis of the claim, and no issues were at the first instance trial concerning return of unjust enrichment, and thus no examination was conducted at all.
If a party who has lawfully filed a counterclaim in the first instance trial changes the counterclaim in exchange for another party, the change of the claim should also be permitted unless the changed claim and the previous claim are the same as the actual issue of the claim and there is no change in the basis of the claim.
On the other hand, the change of claims can be made until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court to the extent that it does not change the foundation of the claim, unless it is obvious to delay the proceedings, and the change of claims and the cause of the claim merely differs in the method of resolution in the same living facts or the same economic interest dispute, shall not be changed
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da28338, 28345 Decided March 29, 2012). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the health care unit and the Lessee provided confirmation of the absence of the retirement allowance obligation by a counterclaim from the first instance court, and the Counterclaim changed its exchange to the claim for return of unjust enrichment.