[1] The scope of permission for modification

[2] Whether the appellate court in the claim for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the ground of cancellation of registration of title transfer is permitted to make an additional preliminary change in the claim for cancellation on title trust (affirmative)

[3] Where a title trust is terminated, whether a request for cancellation registration based on ownership is made (affirmative)

[1] The modification of a claim can be made until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court to the extent that it does not change the foundation of the claim, unless it is obvious to delay the litigation procedures, and the modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, which is merely a different resolution method in the same life or the same economic interest dispute, do not change the foundation of the claim. In addition, where most of the previous litigation data can be used for the deliberation of the new claim, it cannot be said that

[2] In a case where the Plaintiff asserted that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant is the registration for invalidation of the cause for which the Defendant made a forgery of the gift contract in the name of the Plaintiff and received a favorable judgment in the first instance court by filing a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration of transfer, and then the first instance court rendered a favorable judgment, the first claim was made in the appellate court, and the first instance court asserted that the registration of transfer was made based on the title trust even if the registration of transfer is not null and void as a preliminary claim, and added a claim for cancellation of the registration made based on the cancellation of the title trust, the above modification is merely a different solution in disputes over the same life or the same economic interest, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a change in the basis for the claim, and therefore

[3] In a case where a title trust is terminated, the truster may request the trustee to cancel the registration in the name of the trustee in order to ensure that the registration relationship is consistent with the substantive legal relationship based on the ownership, and it does not necessarily allow the trustee to only file a claim for ownership transfer registration.

[1] Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 103 [title trust] and Article 214 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Da225 delivered on July 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 1313), Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2462 delivered on January 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 451), Supreme Court Decision 92Da23377 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1937), Supreme Court Decision 96Da32133 delivered on April 15, 197 (Gong197Sang, 1566) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Da1093 delivered on October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 17113) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Da238419 delivered on September 16, 197, 194; Supreme Court Decision 97Da18481 delivered on April 16, 1987

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Choi Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 96Na509 delivered on September 10, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The modification of a claim can be made until the time of closing argument of the fact-finding court unless it is obvious to delay the proceedings. The modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim merely differs in the same living facts or the same economic interest dispute shall not be changed into the basis of the claim. In addition, in the case where most of the previous litigation data can be used for deliberation of the new claim, it shall not be deemed that the delay in the proceedings is significant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Da2462, Jan. 12, 1990; 96Da32133, Apr. 15, 1997).

According to the records, on February 14, 1987, the transfer of ownership was made on the real estate in this case by co-ownership by Won and the defendant, and on October 5, 1992, the transfer of ownership was made on September 15, 1992 on the part of the plaintiff's share in each of the real estate in this case, and on September 16, 1994, on the part of the defendant, the transfer of ownership was made on September 16, 1994 on the ground that the defendant's forgery of the contract for donation under the plaintiff's name was invalid, and the decision was rendered in favor of the court of first instance on December 12, 1995, and on May 26, 1997, the transfer of ownership was made on the basis of the original request for correction and correction of the grounds for claim, which was submitted to the court below on May 26, 1997, and it could not be viewed that the change of ownership registration in this case's primary claim should be resolved by the same reason of title trust.

In addition, when the title trust is terminated, the truster may request the trustee to cancel the registration in the name of the trustee in order to comply with the substantive legal relationship based on the ownership.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the preliminary claim of this case additionally changed is unlawful.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of various circumstances, such as the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the process of purchasing the instant real estate and registering it as the original and the defendant's co-ownership, the possession and management status of the instant real estate, and the motive and circumstances leading up to the transfer registration of the Plaintiff's share in the instant real estate in the name of the defendant, etc., the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff held that the transfer registration of the instant real estate was made for the convenience of the inspection to the defendant, is acceptable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)