logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.12.10 2019나16976
약정금
Text

On the other hand, upon the claim that the court changed its exchange in this court, the counterclaim Defendant 746,50,000 won and the counterclaim Defendant.

Reasons

The counterclaim Defendant asserts that the counterclaim after the change should be dismissed inasmuch as the counterclaim Defendant violated the interest of the class of the counterclaim Defendant, might delay the lawsuit, and did not consent to the change, with respect to the change of the claim for the former contract amount due to the non-performance of obligation in this court, and the counterclaim after the change should be dismissed.

The modification of a claim, unless it substantially delays the litigation procedures, can be done by the time of the closing of argument in the fact-finding court unless it changes the foundation of the claim, and the modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, which differs in the resolution method in the same living facts or the same economic interest dispute, is not a change in the foundation of the claim, and where most of the previous litigation data can be used for the purpose of examining the new claim

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da28311 Decided October 9, 2008). In addition, in a case where the first instance court sufficiently examines the substantial issue that forms the basis of a counterclaim claim in relation to the cause of claim or method of defense of the principal lawsuit in the appellate court, even if the filing of a counterclaim in the appellate court is permitted without the consent of the other party, it cannot be said that the other party would lose the interest of the first instance court or significantly delay the litigation procedures, and in such a case, the counterclaim in the appellate court should be permitted, regardless of whether the other party consented.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da4545, 4552, 45569 Decided March 26, 1996. Examining the foregoing legal doctrine, the counterclaim prior to the amendment is a claim for the agreed amount based on the terms and conditions of the contract between the counterclaim Defendant and D on April 23, 2018, and the counterclaim subsequent to the amendment is a claim for damages arising from the non-performance of the said special agreement, and the two are merely different ways to resolve the dispute, and thus, the amendment is based on the basis of the claim.

arrow