beta
Text
1. Upon the request of this court for a change in exchange, the defendant shall provide the plaintiff with the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows, and except for adding A evidence No. 13 to the grounds for recognition, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as follows. Thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
▣
D. The Plaintiff acquired ownership by selling the instant real estate at the instant auction procedure on December 22, 2016.
Meanwhile, the defendant occupies the real estate of this case.
A person shall be appointed.
2. The defendant asserts to the purport that it is improper for the court to change the claim to seek delivery of the instant real estate while seeking confirmation that the original plaintiff had no lien on the instant real estate.
An alteration of a claim may be made within the extent that the basis of the claim is not altered, unless there are special circumstances, until the conclusion of the pleadings by the fact-finding court (Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act), and the alteration of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim merely differs in the method of resolution in disputes concerning the same living facts or the same economic interest.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da4416 delivered on April 24, 1998). The Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of non-existence of a lien against the Defendant, and the claim for extradition of real estate of this case are related to whether the Defendant has a lien on the real estate of this case. As such, there is a difference in the method of resolution in disputes over the same living or economic interest, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for exchange change in this court is lawful since it has no change in the existing claim and the basis for the claim.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. Judgment on the merits
A. The fact that the Defendant occupied the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff as to the cause of the claim is as seen earlier.