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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Since a party to a lawsuit is an important matter that is directly connected to the issue of party capacity, party standing, etc., the court that examines and determines the case must ex officio confirm and proceed with the hearing by which the party to the lawsuit is a party.

If the plaintiff has mistakenly indicated a person who has no capacity to be a party without accurately indicating the party, it is allowed to correct the indication to the correct party, and if the identity is recognized, it should also be allowed in the appellate court.

A court shall examine and determine the merits after receiving an application for correction of a party indication to correct the party indication, and may not immediately dismiss the lawsuit after the plaintiff dismissed the application even though it requested such correction of a party indication.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da3852 Decided October 11, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 99Du2017 Decided November 13, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 2012Da68279 Decided August 22, 2013, Supreme Court Decision 2012Da68279 Decided December 27, 2016, etc.). Meanwhile, a school is not a juristic person, but a juristic person, and is merely an unincorporated association or foundation that is not a juristic person, and thus, is not a party’s ability in a civil procedure.

The Plaintiff’s correction of the indication to a juristic person or individual who established and operates a school after filing a lawsuit with the Plaintiff having no capacity to do so is merely to correct the erroneous party’s indication (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Da1205, Aug. 22, 1978; 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

The plaintiff.