(영문) 대법원 2017.10.12.선고 2017다236329 판결

1. The reasoning of the judgment shall be stated in the judgment (Article 208(1)4 of the Civil Procedure Act); and the reason thereof shall be indicated to the extent that the order is recognizable to be justifiable (Article 208(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). The purport that the reasoning of the judgment is to be stated in the judgment is to verify the reasonableness and objectivity of the selection, application, and interpretation of fact-finding and laws and regulations conducted in the process of the trial in order to ensure that the process of judgment based on the method of deriving the conclusion is unreasonable or not subjectively based on specific facts recognized by the court by applying laws and regulations, and thus, to ensure that the relevant process is not unreasonable or subjective (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da3620, Sept. 12, 2013). Therefore, the reason of the judgment is that the necessary judgment required in the process leading to the conclusion is without merit so that it can clarify that it is reasonable and objective (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da3620, Sept. 12, 2013).

Meanwhile, in a case where a new claim is added to the appellate court for the first time, the appellate court should judge the additional claim as the first instance court in substance, so the first instance court ruled that "the plaintiff's claim is dismissed" while rejecting the existing claim, and where the appellate court rejects all the claims added in the existing claim and in the appellate trial, "the appeal is dismissed" merely. In addition, the appellate court must indicate that "the plaintiff's claim is dismissed" as to the claims added in the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da24083, Aug. 30, 200).

2. According to the records, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the cancellation of the transfer of ownership registration of this case which was concluded on November 22, 2013 as a fraudulent act between Codefendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as "C") and the defendant with respect to each of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as "the second sale contract of this case"), and the plaintiff filed a claim for the cancellation of the transfer of ownership registration of this case which was completed in the future of the defendant on the ground of the second sale contract of this case due to its restoration to its original state. The court of first instance rejected the appeal. The plaintiff appealed against the appeal and submitted the court of the lower court on January 25, 2017, "in addition of the cause of claim 1." from the preparatory document of this case as of January 25, 2017, which was submitted to the court of first instance, "I add the cause of claim as invalid due to a false declaration of intention and thus seek the cancellation of the contract by subrogation." However, the court below's decision on the ground of appeal is dismissed.

In light of the aforementioned facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s additional modification of the lawsuit by adding a claim seeking cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case under the name of the Defendant in subrogation of C, since the existing claim seeking cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case constitutes a fraudulent act through a preparatory document dated January 25, 2017 falls under the second sale contract of this case, and thus, the contract of this case was invalid as the second sale contract of this case with the original intent to restore the original state to its original state. In such a case, the lower court should have deliberated and judged whether the additional claim constitutes a false declaration of agreement as the first instance court’s first instance court’s agreement

Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed only the Plaintiff’s appeal against the existing claim without examining and making any judgment as to the additional claim. In so doing, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and omitting judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.