beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.
A. Article 249(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a complaint shall state the purport and cause of the claim.
This is because the existence of a certain right or legal relationship claimed by the Plaintiff by the description of the purport and cause of the claim, that is, the subject matter of the lawsuit, can be tried only when the subject matter of the lawsuit is specified. Although the purport of the claim is specified, a number of claims such as a relative and non-exclusive right can be established between the same parties. Thus, the subject matter of the lawsuit can only be specified in the cause of the claim.
With respect to the instant case, on September 24, 2014, the Ministry of Health and Welfare ordered the Plaintiff to arrange and amend the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on the second date for pleading, and the Plaintiff submitted an application for modification of the purport of the claim on November 4, 2014 in accordance with the aforementioned order for correction. However, the said application for modification of the purport of the claim was also specified only in the number of the Notarial Deed, but still did not clearly state the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim
(The suggesting that the purport and cause of the claim should be corrected specifically as follows does not fall under the scope of the exercise of the court’s right to request tiny. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim was specified.
B. Determination as to whether the exclusion period expires, even if the Plaintiff’s claim may be deemed specified on the following grounds, a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act shall be brought within one year from the date when the obligee became aware of the cause for revocation and within five years from the date of the juristic act (Article 406(2) of the Civil Act). According to the result of the request for delivery of the document by the Daejeon District Court on March 3, 2014, the Defendant is the defendant.