1. The part of the plaintiff's request for confirmation of ownership added in the trial shall be dismissed.

2.The change in exchange at the time of the trial.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to that of Paragraph 1.

The defendant's assertion as to the prior defense on the claim for confirmation of ownership argues that since the plaintiff's ownership confirmation part on the warehouse of this case was exchanged for the first instance trial after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, it is not allowed to seek again against the principle of prohibition of re-litigation.

Article 267(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A person who withdraws a lawsuit after a final judgment has been rendered on the merits shall not institute an identical lawsuit.”

On the other hand, in the appellate trial, the purport of the claim and the statement of the cause of the claim in the first instance court shall be withdrawn, and the new purport of the claim and the change of the claim that stated the cause of the claim shall be changed in exchange for the claim. In the case where the lawsuit is exchanged in the appellate trial

(See Supreme Court Decision 68Da1798 Decided May 27, 1969, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83908 Decided February 26, 2009). The judgment of the court of first instance was rendered at the court of first instance that the Plaintiff claims the Defendants to seek confirmation of ownership of the instant warehouse and won all of the Plaintiff’s winning of the instant warehouse at the court of first instance, and on April 7, 2016, the court of first instance changed the claim exchange with the Defendants to seek the prohibition of interference with the use and profit-making of the instant warehouse, and added the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation of ownership of the instant warehouse again on May 11, 2016.

Therefore, the part of the claim seeking confirmation of the Plaintiff’s ownership in the warehouse of this case was withdrawn on April 7, 2016 after the first instance judgment was rendered.

As such, the plaintiff is re-written application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim on May 11, 2016.