(a) Whether a change is possible after the final judgment has been made to exchange the previous claim with the application district, and then re-transferable to the previous claim;

(b) The court's assistance in case where the alteration of the lawsuit is obscure; and

A. An exchange change in a lawsuit is deemed to be a combination between the additional consolidation of the application form and the withdrawal of the application form. As such, in a case where, after a final judgment on the merits was rendered, the exchange has been changed to the application form, and then the exchange has again been changed to the original application form, it falls under the case where the same lawsuit has been withdrawn after the final judgment

B. The issue of whether a change in a lawsuit is exchanged additionally or selective is basically based on the interpretation of the intention of the party concerned. Therefore, in a case where the form of change is obscure by entering the new purport of the claim in the petition of appeal without clearly stating that the party concerned withdraws the previous claim, the fact-finding court is obligated to clarify it in its name as to whether the purpose of changing the claim is additional or selective authorization.

A. Articles 235 and 240(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 126 and 235 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 67Da766 Decided July 4, 1967

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 86Na225 delivered on October 22, 1986

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

Since the exchange change of a lawsuit is deemed to be a combination between the additional consolidation of the application form and the withdrawal of the application form, in case where the exchange of a lawsuit is changed to the application form after the final judgment on the merits was rendered, and then the previous claim is changed to the original request, then it is unlawful as it constitutes a case where a lawsuit is withdrawn after the final judgment was rendered, and the same lawsuit is re-in

According to the records, the plaintiff loaned 6,00,000 won to the defendant and filed a lawsuit seeking implementation of the principal registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the provisional registration, while the plaintiff had lent 6,00,000 won to the defendant and had it registered in the name of the plaintiff on the site of this case, which is owned by the defendant, but was sentenced to the judgment of the court of first instance at the court of first instance, and then filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, without indicating that the purport of appeal is withdrawn, etc. in the petition of appeal. The above petition of appeal stated that "the defendant shall pay 6,00,000 won to the plaintiff." The above petition of appeal was made at the second date of pleading, which was appointed by the plaintiff's legal representative, and the purport of the appeal is revoked by his agent. The defendant submitted a correction of the purport of appeal to the plaintiff that the plaintiff was immediately cancelled by the provisional registration based on the provisional registration, and this constitutes an unlawful claim for transfer of ownership based on the original purport of the plaintiff's claim for discharge procedure.

However, the issue of whether a change in a lawsuit is exchanged additionally or selective is basically based on the interpretation of the intention of the party concerned. Therefore, in case where the form of change is obscure because the party concerned enters the new purport of the claim in the petition of appeal, etc. without clearly stating that the previous claim is withdrawn, the court of fact-finding has a duty to clarify what the purpose of the change in the claim is, namely, exchange, additional or selective authorization (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da766 delivered on July 4, 1967). Thus, without taking any measure like this, the court below held that the remaining claim of the plaintiff, which was concluded by the plaintiff as being sentenced to the first judgment of the court of first instance and then changed the previous claim into the application form, cannot be said to have been unlawful since it erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the change in the lawsuit and in the exercise of the right to request explanation, it is reasonable to discuss the appeal containing such purport.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)