손해배상(기)
1. Plaintiff C, D, E, and F’s claim for consolation money in the application form for modification of the claim and cause of the claim as of August 14, 2014 of the instant case.
1. The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows: “The Plaintiff’s children are the deceased, and B died on February 23, 2014, which was after the first instance judgment was rendered, as the wife of the deceased.” The reasoning for this Court’s judgment is as follows: “The evidence No. 15 through No. 21” was added to the ground for recognition of the 5 conduct, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is stated in the reasoning for the judgment.
(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Judgment on the main defense, etc.
A. On August 14, 2014, Plaintiff C, D, E, and F issued an order to revise the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of August 14, 2014, on the grounds that they jointly inherited the deceased’s consolation money with the Plaintiff on August 14, 2014, each of the grounds that they jointly inherited the deceased’s consolation money as of August 14, 2014, which was stated at the second date of pleading, was added to the claim of KRW 16 million (80 million ± 5) and delay damages therefor. On September 22, 2014, the presiding judge issued an order to revise the recognition that the correction order was issued within five days from the date of delivery of whether it was a correction order in accordance with the application for correction of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, and the Plaintiffs’ attorney was also subject to the order for correction and payment of stamps on September 23, 2014.
According to the above facts of recognition, since Plaintiff C, D, E, and F did not pay stamps in accordance with the order to correct recognition, the additional part of Plaintiff C, D, E, and F’s claim for consolation money is unlawful in the application for modification of the purport of claim and cause of claim as of August 14, 2014 of the instant case.
(However, the reduction of claims does not require the separate stamp payment, and thus, the part of the request reduction among the applications for change of claim and cause of the claim as of August 14, 2014 in this case is valid).
The judgment of the court on the defense of this case is not accepted since the defendant is not authorized to institute the lawsuit of this case against the name of the law firm representative, and the lawsuit of this case in the name of the plaintiffs is unlawful.
Gap evidence 16 to 21 each.