1. Upon the claim that the court changed the exchange in this court, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 44,000,000 and this shall apply.

In the appellate trial, the plaintiff filed a claim for the return of investment agreement and delay damages in the amount of KRW 317,210,229 paid as real estate development investment in the first instance court, and the plaintiff filed a claim for the return of agreed amount and delay damages in the amount of KRW 5,00,000 paid as the plaintiff's job referral.

After all, the Plaintiff filed an application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in the appellate court on October 11, 2019, and filed a claim against the Defendant on May 16, 2015, based on the loan certificate (Evidence A6-2) written by the Defendant on May 16, 2015, and filed a claim for an agreed amount of KRW 44,000,000 and damages for delay thereon.

ex officio determination, we examine whether the exchange change in the plaintiff's lawsuit in the appellate court is legitimate.

The modification of a claim under Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless it is obvious to delay litigation procedures, can be made within the extent that the basis of the claim is not changed until the closing of argument in fact-finding proceedings. Thus, even if the court of appeal permits the modification of a lawsuit without the defendant’s consent, it does not result in deprivation of the defendant’s interest in the court of appeal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da183 Decided April 29, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 83Meu514 Decided February 14, 1984, etc.). In a case where a claim is modified, the court may render a decision not to allow the use of all the previous litigation data to hear a new claim, and where a separate submission of evidence and a new trial significantly delays the litigation procedures.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da211146, May 30, 2017). However, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of the amount of investment agreement, etc. at the first instance trial against the Defendant and the claim for the amount of the agreement changed in this court is sought to pay all the money agreed to the Defendant in relation to I’s investment. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff are the Plaintiff.