A. The application for change of the plaintiffs' purport and cause of the claim is without the identity of the purport and basis of the claim before the change.

In the case of a claim for the delivery of shares of this case, the donation and title trust are entirely different from the legal requirements and effects, and in particular, the claim for the return of the main and preliminary reserve added by the plaintiffs in this court was not asserted at all in the previous claim, so the modification of the claim is impermissible.

B. The modification of the claim on the part of the claim for issuance of stocks of this case, unless it is obvious to delay the proceedings, can be made not later than the time the argument of the fact-finding court is closed, unless there is a change in the basis of the claim, and the modification of the claim and the cause of the claim merely differs in the same life or in the same economic interest dispute

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da28338, 28345, Mar. 29, 2012). The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant shares transferred from the network E to the Defendant were substantially donated to the Defendant by E, while the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant shares transferred from E to the Defendant by changing the cause of the claim was the title trust of E.

This is to seek the return of the instant shares transferred from E to the Defendant, and it is only a different solution in the same living facts or the same economic interest dispute, and thus it cannot be deemed that there is a change in the basis of the claim. Therefore, such change is permitted.

C. The Plaintiffs may alter the purport or cause of the claim until the closing of pleadings. However, this is permitted to the extent that the basis of the claim is not changed, and where the legal procedure is substantially delayed (Article 262(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), the court shall purport or purport of the claim.