소유권이전등기
1. Upon a claim for change in exchange at the trial, the Defendant:
(a) Appendix I Nos. 1 through 1.
1. Determination of the defendant's assertion related to the scope of this court's trial
A. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal stating only the land indicated in the attached Tables 3 and 19, the remaining land portion has been determined and is not subject to a trial.
On the other hand, if the plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed or dismissed all of the plaintiff's multiple claims, only the part of which was not appealed, the remaining part of which was not appealed shall be prevented from becoming final and conclusive by the appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da30312, Apr. 27, 2001; 2003Da69676, Apr. 9, 2004). As long as the plaintiff appealed only the part of the claim against the land specified in the attached Tables 3 and 19, but the plaintiff extended the purport of appeal against the remaining claims before the closing of argument in the court of first instance, the above part shall also be subject to the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant's above argument is without merit.
B. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff sought only the delivery of the building of this case in the first instance trial, the transfer of ownership cannot be claimed in the trial.
On the other hand, the plaintiff in civil procedure can change the purpose or cause of the claim until the conclusion of pleadings, unless there is a change in the foundation of the claim, unless it is obvious to delay the proceedings. The purport of recognizing the modification of the purport of the claim is to achieve a reasonable resolution in dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, and at the same time to be compatible with the economy of the lawsuit.
Therefore, there is no change in the basis of the claim that there is a difference in the method of resolution in the same living facts or the same economic interest dispute.
to the extent that it is reasonable
Therefore, the plaintiff sought delivery of the building of this case at the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 65Da1545, Oct. 23, 1973; 73Da702, Oct. 23, 197; 96Da3213, Apr. 25, 197).