1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: “the Defendant” is as “Seoul Northern Hospital”; “Seoul Medical Center” or “Seoul Medical Center” is as “the Defendant”; “the lawfulness of the application for party indication correction is added to “2.” The fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is as “3. Party’s assertion”; “3.3.” The fifth part of the judgment is as “4. decision”; “4. conclusion” as “5. conclusion”; “11.4. conclusion” as “5. conclusion”; and “10 to 10.10” as “the seventh part of the judgment of the first instance.”

The part of the "decision on the defense against the violation of the good faith principle" is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it shall be accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Parts]

2. Whether an application for correcting an indication by the party is legitimate.

A. On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiff’s legal representative submitted to this court an application for rectification of the party’s indication to the effect that the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City North Korea Hospital is corrected to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Medical Center.

In this regard, the legal representative of the Seoul Metropolitan Government North Korea Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Metropolitan Government Hospital") and the "Seoul Special Metropolitan City Medical Center" claims to the effect that the application for the correction of the indication constitutes a change of the party and is unlawful, as it is a separate organization whose representative differs from that of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Hospital.

B. A party shall reasonably interpret and confirm the whole purport of the complaint, including the contents and cause of the claim, and where the party indicated in the complaint is not recognized as a party ability, correction of the complaint shall be allowed as a correct party ability recognized as a result of a reasonable interpretation of the whole purport of the complaint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da1950, Nov. 26, 199). The following are based on the evidence No. 1, No. 2, and No. 1, No. 2, and No. 1, and the whole purport of the arguments.