Whether the addition of a new party can be permitted due to a change in the indication of the party

The correction of the indication of a party is allowed only when the indication is changed to the extent that the identity of the person indicated as the party is recognized. Thus, adding a new party to the previous party is not allowed as a change of the indication of the party, and it should be considered as a new appeal against the added party.

Articles 227 and 367 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff Kim-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and two others

Daejeon District Court Decision 78Na180 delivered on January 13, 1980

The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 3 is dismissed, and the remaining defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 3 is examined.

According to the records, it is evident that the plaintiff's attorney was served on March 20, 1980 the original judgment and submitted a petition of appeal indicating the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 to the original court. It is obvious that the plaintiff's attorney submitted an application for correcting the party's indication added to defendant 3-Appellee to the original court for May 3 of the same year.

However, a party’s change is allowed only when it is allowed to change only the identification of the person indicated as a party to the extent that it is recognized as the identity of the person indicated as a party. Thus, adding a new party to the previous party cannot be allowed as a modification of the indication of the party, which should be considered as a new appeal against the added party. However, the Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 3 against the Defendant 3, which was instituted after the lapse of the filing period for

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

In light of the record, this case is a small-sum case under the Trial of Small Claims Act, and it cannot be recognized that there is a reason as provided in Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, there is no reason to see the facts due to the incomplete hearing or the violation

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 3 is dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)