2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

“Around December 31, 2014, while serving as the managing staff of the Defendant Company’s self-reader, the Defendant Company retired from office on December 31, 2014.” In addition to deletion of the parts of the 4th page 11 through 5th page 23, the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance. As such, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s main defense against the Defendant’s principal safety seeks to verify the existence of a franchise license from February 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015 based on the third franchise agreement of this case, and the Plaintiff asserted that the exchange of a claim to seek confirmation of the existence of a new franchise license based on the Plaintiff’s application for a new franchise franchise franchise franchise license from January 8, 2015 to January 31, 2016 is unlawful as it loses the identity of the claim.

The modification of a claim can be made until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court to the extent that it does not change the basis of the claim, unless it is obvious to delay the proceedings, and the modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, which is merely a different resolution method in the same life or the same economic interest dispute, does not change the basis of the claim. In addition, if most of the previous litigation data can be used for the purpose of examining the new claim, it shall not be said that

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da4416, Apr. 24, 1998). With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s previous claim in the Health Center and the Plaintiff’s notice of termination of the instant three franchise agreement on March 28, 2014 and April 23, 2014.