beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the facts is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification under the following sub-paragraph (c) of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
C. Meanwhile, from July 2007 to August 201, the Defendant began to distribute part of the proceeds from the lease of the commercial building of this case to 122 persons, such as F, etc., a loan member, in order to first appropriate for the repayment of the loan to the Defendant’s members (hereinafter the loan members) who lent money to D (hereinafter the loan of this case). On March 30, 2008, a general meeting of shareholders (hereinafter the “general meeting of shareholders of this case”) held a resolution to confirm the distribution of the proceeds from the lease of this case and to first appropriate for the repayment of the loan to the loan members of the loan (hereinafter the resolution of this case) and to confirm the distribution of the proceeds from the lease of this case to August 2010, and thereafter to distribute the proceeds from the lease to all the Defendant members including the Plaintiff.
2. Whether the amendment of the purport of the claim is lawful
A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff sought for the payment of shares according to the Plaintiff’s share ratio among the Defendant’s rent revenue, and subsequently changed its claim in exchange for seeking the invalidity of the instant resolution in the trial. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the change of the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be permitted due to the lack of the identity of the claim basis between the two claims.
B. Unless the claim is changed on the basis of the claim before and after the change in exchange for a claim, the consent of the other party corresponding to the withdrawal of the lawsuit is not necessary (see Supreme Court Decision 4294DaDa310, Jan. 31, 1962), and the method of resolving disputes over the same living or the same economic interest.