The case holding that no change was made on the basis of the claim

The court below asserted that the plaintiff made a joint guarantor of the defendant 2 non-party 1 as the ground for the claim and lent the amount of KRW 1.6 million to the defendant 1 on January 15, 1972. The plaintiff completed a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim the transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff and lent the amount of KRW 1.6 million to the non-party 2 in the name of the plaintiff as the security of the real estate in the name of the non-party 2, and the non-party 3 clan filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation registration of the transfer registration due to the invalidity of the cause against the non-party 2, and the defendant and the non-party 1 jointly and severally agreed to pay the amount of interest of KRW 1.6 million in the amount of the loan or the contract payment claim of the former requester, jointly and severally, against the defendants, and it cannot be said that there is a change in the foundation of the claim.

Articles 235 and 236 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da546 delivered on June 27, 1972 (Kakadd 10173; Supreme Court Decision 202Da1221 delivered on November 28, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 203Da138 delivered on June 27, 197, Supreme Court Decision 202Da1221 delivered on November 28, 1972 (Supreme Court Decision 203Da138 delivered on June 1028; Supreme Court Decision 2035(47)904 delivered on June 27, 197)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (72Gahap277)

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The part of the judgment against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,60,000 and the amount equivalent to 36% per annum from January 2, 1972 to August 2, 1972, and 25% per annum from August 3, 1972 to full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The above paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

First of all, the change of the claim is legitimate.

The plaintiff's legal representative asserted that the plaintiff as a joint guarantor on January 2, 1972, the plaintiff 2 and the non-party 1 (the original defendant) made a loan to the defendant 1 by setting the amount of 1.6 million won per month and the due date on January 15, 1972, but was ruled against the plaintiff at the court below, the plaintiff was revoked, and the ground for the plaintiff was withdrawn at the trial, and the new ground for the claim was 180 - 638 - with the name of the non-party 2 in the name of the non-party 180 - to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration in the name of the non-party 1.6 million - to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration in the name of the non-party 1,600,000 won, but the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration with respect to the above forest, and the change of the plaintiff's claim to the non-party 2 to the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 16 -party 1 had agreed to pay the above amount.

On July 7, 1970, the Plaintiff filed a claim for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the Defendant, etc. due to invalidity of the cause for the above forest in the non-party 3 clan, and the Plaintiff filed a claim for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the non-party 2 as to the above forest in fraud. On January 2, 1972, the non-party 1 agreed to pay interest at an interest rate of 4% per month on January 15, 1972, and the Defendants asserted that the payment was jointly and severally guaranteed by the defendant. Thus, the defendants' attorney rejected the above claim, and it seems that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the non-party 2 the debt amount of 1.6 million won lent to the non-party 2 to the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's testimony to the non-party 3 was not established, and there is no other evidence to prove that the contents of the above statement correspond to the Plaintiff's joint payment key.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below sharing this conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is unfair, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff as the losing party.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)