In the appellate court, the purport of the claim and the statement of the cause of the claim in the first instance court are withdrawn, and the new purport of the claim and the change of the claim stated the cause of the claim will be an exchange of claims.

In the appellate court, the statement of the claim and the cause of the claim in the first instance court is withdrawn, and the new claim and the cause of the claim are changed in exchange for the claim.

Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff’s clan (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Hong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 67Na305 delivered on July 25, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the records, the plaintiff was originally owned by the court of first instance, which was the cause of the claim of this case, and was entrusted to the deceased non-party who was the deceased non-party at the time when the land situation in 1917 was made. The plaintiff succeeded to the name of the defendant at the time of the death of the non-party, but the plaintiff claimed that the above title trust was cancelled on January 17, 1967, and accordingly, the plaintiff filed a claim against the plaintiff to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate preserved in the name of the defendant, but the plaintiff's claim was groundless, and the decision of dismissal of the plaintiff was delivered from the court of first instance, and the plaintiff appealed against the above judgment of the court of first instance, and the court of first instance filed an appeal to the court of first instance, and filed an application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as above, and made a statement to the effect that the registration of preservation of the real estate in the name of the defendant was null and void, and the defendant continued to file a suit.

Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff has changed the purport of the claim or the cause of the claim at the court of first instance, which is the second instance, and entirely withdrawn the statement of the cause of the claim at the court of first instance, the alteration of the claim at the court of first instance shall be deemed to be an exchange alteration of the claim. Accordingly, since the lawsuit of the claim for the ownership transfer registration of the real estate in this case as a result of the cancellation of trust has been completed after the final judgment at the court of first instance, the plaintiff cannot file a claim for the ownership transfer registration of the real estate in this case for the reason of the cancellation of trust again for the cancellation of trust, and the plaintiff again filed a claim for the ownership transfer registration of the real estate in this case at the court of first instance as of January 11, 1968, and thus, the decision of the court below dismissed this claim on the ground that it is illegal in violation of the principle of prohibition of re-instigation of trust, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the alteration or withdrawal of the claim in the original judgment, and it cannot be discussed.

First, according to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below determined that the real estate in question was registered in the name of the defendant on the basis of the fact that there is no dispute between the parties concerned, and determined that there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the real estate in question is owned by the plaintiff, and that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the records, the court below did not err in violation of the rules of experience or logic, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion in violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and the court below did not err in finding that there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion in addition to the evidence presented in its reasoning that the court below rejected each evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, and the court below did not err in finding that there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the real estate in question is owned by the defendant's name. Accordingly, since it is not sufficient to conclude that the real estate in question registered in the name of the defendant is owned by the plaintiff, it cannot be viewed that the court below's assertion that the defendant's claim for cancellation of ownership cannot be justified.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices of the Supreme Court Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-dong (Presiding Justice)