1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is that the "1. Basic Facts" is the same as the statement in the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited as it is.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s claim for the reimbursement of the reimbursement of this case, which the Plaintiff allegedly changed in exchange, is unlawful on the ground that it does not coincide with the claim for the repayment of unjust enrichment (the former claim is substantially the same as the claim for return

B. The modification of the claim can be made by the date of the closure of pleadings by the fact-finding court to the extent that the basis of the claim does not change, unless it substantially delays the litigation procedures, and the modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, which merely differs in the method of resolution due to the same living facts or the same economic interest disputes, do not change the basis of the claim. In addition, where most of the previous litigation data can be used for the purpose of examining the new claim, it cannot be said that

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da4416 Decided April 24, 1998, etc.). The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 80 million on his/her behalf in a preparatory document, etc. on April 2, 2018 as the Defendant’s operating capital in the bowling warrant. In light of this, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan (return of unjust enrichment) and the changed claim for the indemnity amount were related to the money transaction arising from the operation of the bowling warrant between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is a dispute over the same facts of living or economic interest, and there is a difference in the method of resolution, and thus, the basis of the claim is identical

In addition, for the purpose of examining the claim for reimbursement of this case, most of the litigation materials previously submitted can be used, so it cannot be said that the above modification of the claim is an obvious delay in litigation procedures.

Therefore, the plaintiff's change of claim is legitimate.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3...