명의변경절차이행
1. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed by the exchange in this court.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
The reasons why this Court is to be stated are as follows: (a) add “Steering Committee” in front of “the president” in Section 2, Section 17, and (b) add “18” in Section 4 to “19”, except that the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the corresponding part in the reasoning of the first instance judgment; and (c) refer it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
With respect to the defense that the change of the purport of the claim by the plaintiff on the previous defense of the merits by the defendant is unlawful, the defendant asserts that the change of the purport of the claim filed by the plaintiff in this court is not identical to the claim before and after the amendment.
The change of claims can be made until the conclusion of pleadings within the extent that the basis of the claim is not changed unless it substantially delays the proceedings (Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act). The change of claims and the basis of the claim shall be deemed that there is no change in the basis of the claim, which is merely a difference in the resolution methods in disputes concerning the same living or the same economic interest.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da2838, 28345 Decided March 29, 2012, etc.). Examining the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff’s claim before and after the instant change is premised on the Defendant’s dismissal from office as the president of the instant shopping district operating committee. As such, in disputes over the same living facts, both claims before and after the instant change are deemed to have a difference in the legal resolution method. Thus, both claims are deemed to have the same basis for the said claim.
In addition, since most of the previous litigation data can be used for the examination of new claims, it cannot be said that the litigation procedures are significantly delayed.
Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits cannot be accepted.
The defendant's judgment on the defense that there is no benefit of confirmation is unlawful.