beta
Text
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts contained in this Court;
A. On December 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 36,590,000 and damages for delay due to the tort committed by the administrator of the said cooperative, as the employer of the Taecheon Agricultural Cooperative, around this Court, 2014-Guhap21400, and the Plaintiff as the conjunctively filed a claim for the exemption from the application for extension of the repayment of agricultural management improvement funds with the Plaintiff on August 11, 2003, and the debt review committee of the said cooperative filed a claim for nullification of each of the above judgments, which had been between the Plaintiff and the president of the said association and the Republic of Korea, against the Plaintiff on August 23, 2003.
The above complaint was accompanied by KRW 169,600.
B. In the foregoing case, on December 16, 2014, the presiding judge ordered the Plaintiff to pay KRW 485,000 in the stamp shortage.
C. On December 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for legal aid with the competent court for the entire litigation costs, including the stamp of the instant case, but was dismissed on January 8, 2015.
Accordingly, the plaintiff, in the above case, has filed an application for modification of the purport of the existing claim stated in the complaint on January 10, 2005, stating that "the defendant, primarily through the manager of the above union, sought confirmation of invalidity of the non-existence decision of the application for extension of the repayment of agricultural management improvement funds to the plaintiff on August 23, 2003, and, in addition, the above non-conformity decision was filed by the above administrator, and the bankruptcy crime committed by the above administrator and the judgment on March 25, 2008, an administrative appeals commission shall be amended to seek confirmation of proximate causal relation with the defendant's omission, respectively." On January 15, 2005, the plaintiff asserted that the amount of 169,600 won, attached to the complaint, was 69,600 won as a result of the above amendment of the purport of the claim, and filed an application for the return thereof on January 20, 2015, and sought the return thereof on January 1, 2015.