The "request for damages" is changed to "request for restitution of unjust enrichment" and the so-called "basic modification of claim" under Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Even if the conciliation has been concluded by an application for conciliation to confirm the existence of de facto marriage against the deceased person, such conciliation may not take effect.

Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Act

Mychomama

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 decided May 1, 200

Gwangju High Court Decision 64Na230, 231 delivered on December 3, 1964

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (hereinafter simply referred to as the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff), the Plaintiff’s judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant simply cultivated the Plaintiff’s main issue against the Defendant by illegal cultivation, and the Defendant cultivated the instant case without any legal ground, and thus, the Defendant’s claim for unjust enrichment seeking the return of the benefits accrued to the Defendant under the Plaintiff’s damages was modified to the claim for unjust enrichment for which the Defendant sought the return of the benefits accrued from the Plaintiff’s damage. The above claim is deemed to be the same in substance, and the facts based on the claim were based on the Defendant’s assertion as owned by the Plaintiff, and there is no change in the foundation of the claim. Therefore, the lower court’s opinion that permits the alteration of the Plaintiff’

The judgment on the second ground for appeal

The conciliation established between the deceased person and the deceased person cannot take effect even if the conciliation was established by the application for conciliation of confirmation of the existence of marriage against the deceased person. Therefore, it is reasonable that the court below denied the validity of the conciliation of confirmation of the existence of marriage after the death of the deceased person between the deceased person and his deceased person. Therefore, there is no reason to appeal to the contrary that the conciliation is legally valid.

Judgment on the third ground for appeal

According to the customs of the Republic of Korea before the enforcement of the current Civil Code, if the head of family or a family dies and there is no heir, the miscarriage shall be deemed to belong to the right of a neighboring family member's case. The above precedents have no reason to change this, and there is no reason to discuss the appeal to the court below's legitimate decision as the opposite opinion.

Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 4

In light of the record, it is hard to find that the plaintiff received the money for release from provisional seizure for the purpose of preserving the damages caused by the defendant's unauthorized cultivation in 1959. Furthermore, there is no violation of law in the court below's approval of unjust enrichment, and there is no error of law in the selection of evidence preparation.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court