In a claim for the delivery of a site, the indication of the site is identical to the first instance trial, and only the objects of removal of the obstacles on the site are different, and whether the claim is based on changes in the claim

In the case of a request for the removal of land delivery and its ground objects, if the indication of the site is the same as the first instance court, and only the object of removal on the site is changed, it shall not be deemed that the basis of the claim is changed.

Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Act

Pung Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yang Sung-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Full Kim Kim

Seoul High Court Decision 4293No1178 delivered on June 7, 1961

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's agent stated in the annexed appellate brief.

According to the original judgment, the court below determined that the plaintiff removed the whole standing timber of 162 to 104 to 162 to 3 104 to 15 to 104 to 104 to 15 to Gabbe, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, for the plaintiff, and that the defendant's claim at the court of first instance was made at the court of first instance to the effect that the plaintiff should not be permitted to change the foundation of the new claim, and that the plaintiff's claim at the court of first instance to the effect that the plaintiff's claim at the court of first instance was made at 162 to 104 to 162 to 104 to 15 to 104 to Gabbe, Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Seoul, for the plaintiff, and that there was no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff's claim at the court of first instance was made at the court of first instance.

However, as a claim at the first instance court or a claim at the lower court or a claim at the lower court, the claim for the delivery of the site is being made on the ground of ownership of 162 to 104, 162 to 104, 3 Hobbbe, Ga, Ga-dong, and the difference is merely the subject of removal of a disturbance on the site. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a change in the foundation of the claim. Therefore, it cannot be said that the lower court’s action which did not permit the change in the purport of the claim is unlawful, and even if the plaintiff did not institute a public prosecution, the public prosecution court can expand the claim through the change of the claim, and thus, the defendant’s

In addition, according to the appraisal by the expert witness of the court below, it is clear that the building site of 104 square meters and 1 square bbebs, as alleged by the plaintiff, are installed in brick and warehouse 1 square 2 square bbes owned by the defendant. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below did not dismiss the appraisal result, and it cannot be said that the building site of this case was entirely delivered. Thus, all of the arguments are justified.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the last leapon interference