Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
New order required after appellate change of joinder
Supreme Court, Oct. 15, 2020, 2018Da229625 (judgment)
Case name: 부당이득반환청구등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
After the plaintiff changed the form of joinder at appeal, so that a claim unadjudicated at first instance became the primary claim, must the appellate court issue a new order granting that claim when it is well founded, even if the conclusion is the same as the first-instance order, rather than dismiss the defendant's appeal?
Holding
The appellate court must issue a new order granting the primary claim; it must not dismiss the defendant's appeal merely because the conclusion matches the first-instance order. In this case that meant ordering the defendant to pay KRW 38,090,000 with delayed damages at 5% per year from 16 May 2013 to 12 October 2016 and 15% per year from the next day until payment in full, and the Supreme Court reversed the appellate judgment and decided the case itself. The Court also restated that fact-finding and the choice and evaluation of evidence remain the trial court's exclusive authority so long as they stay within the limits of free evaluation.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
항소심이 주위적 청구 부분을 먼저 심리하여 그 청구가 이유 있다고 인정하는 경우에는, 비록 결론이 제1심판결의 주문과 동일하더라도 피고의 항소를 기각하여서는 아니 되고 새로이 청구를 인용하는 주문을 선고하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the appellate court first examines the portion of the principal claim and finds that claim meritorious, the defendant's appeal must not be dismissed, and a new order upholding the claim must be rendered, even though the conclusion is identical to the order of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Disposition
Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기한다. 원심에서 변경된 주위적 청구에 따라, 피고는 원고에게 38,090,000원과 이에 대하여 2013. 5. 16.부터 2016. 10. 12.까지는 연 5%의, 그 다음 날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 지급하라. 소송총비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed. Pursuant to the principal claim as changed in the court below, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 38,090,000 won and money calculated at the rate of 5% per annum thereon from May 16, 2013 to October 12, 2016, and at the rate of 15% per annum from the following day until the day of full payment. The costs of the entire action shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
원고가 항소심에서 병합의 형태를 변경하여 제1심에서 심판되지 않은 청구 부분을 주위적 청구로, 제1심에서 인용된 위 청구 부분을 예비적 청구로 구함에 따라 항소심이 주위적 청구 부분을 먼저 심리하여 그 청구가 이유 있다고 인정하는 경우에는
Unofficial English translation
Where, as the plaintiff, in changing the form of joinder in the appellate court, seeks as the principal claim the portion of the claim not adjudicated in the court of first instance and as the alternative claim the portion of the claim upheld in the court of first instance, and the appellate court first examines the portion of the principal claim and finds that claim meritorious,
Factors
- 두 개의 청구 중 1개의 청구가 인용되고 피고가 항소한 후
- 원고가 항소심에서 병합의 형태를 변경하여
- 항소심이 주위적 청구 부분을 먼저 심리하여 그 청구가 이유 있다고 인정하는 경우에는
- 비록 결론이 제1심판결의 주문과 동일하더라도
Unofficial English translation
• after one of the two claims was upheld and the defendant appealed,
• the plaintiff, in changing the form of joinder in the appellate court,
• Where the appellate court first examines the portion of the principal claim and finds that claim meritorious,
• even though the conclusion is identical to the order of the judgment of the court of first instance,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 11. 14. 선고 2016다227694 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da227694 decided November 14, 2019
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2019. 11. 14. 선고 2016다227694 판결(공2020상, 4)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How should the appellate order deal with the alternative claim adjudicated at first instance when the changed primary claim is well founded but the amount awarded differs from the first-instance order?
A later Supreme Court decision addressing the appellate order where the changed primary claim is rejected, or where its conclusion differs from the first-instance order, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act's provisions on appellate disposition or joinder, including Articles 208 and 253 referred to in the decision.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 30 March 2018 (2017Na65915), examined the unjust enrichment claim that the plaintiff had made primary at appeal and found it well founded. It held that the defendant, although the necessity of hospitalisation was not recognised for the periods remaining after deducting the appropriate days of hospitalisation from each stay, received hospital treatment and daily hospital benefits from the plaintiff insurer and thereby gained KRW 38,090,000 without legal ground. Because that conclusion was the same as the first-instance order, it dismissed the defendant's appeal.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law and reversed its judgment. When the plaintiff changes the form of joinder so that a claim unadjudicated at first instance becomes the primary claim, and the appellate court finds that claim well founded, the appellate court must issue a new order granting it even if the conclusion is identical to the first-instance order. Finding the case sufficiently clear for direct decision under Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court ordered the defendant to pay KRW 38,090,000 with delayed damages and placed the total costs on the defendant; the limitation defence raised for the first time in the supplementary grounds of appeal was rejected as an inadmissible new ground at appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the appellate court finds the changed primary claim without merit, since the rule turns on that claim being well founded.
- A case in which the plaintiff did not change the form of joinder at appeal, or in which the claim now made primary was already adjudicated at first instance.
- A case in which the appellate court is not granting a claim unadjudicated below, so that there is no new order to issue.
Record verification notes
Identify which of the alternative claims the first-instance court actually adjudicated, and then check whether the plaintiff changed the form of joinder after the defendant appealed. Ask whether the appellate court found the changed primary claim well founded, since that is what triggers the requirement for a new order. Keep the evidentiary ground apart: fact-finding and the choice and evaluation of evidence remain the trial court's exclusive authority so long as they stay within the limits of free evaluation.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 사실의 인정 및 증거의 취사선택과 평가가 사실심 법원의 전권사항인지 여부(원칙적 적극) [2] 원고가 제1심에서 선택적으로 구한 두 개의 청구 중 1개의 청구가 인용되었는데, 원고가 항소심에서 병합의 형태를 변경하여 제1심에서 심판되지 않은 청구 부분을 주위적 청구로, 제1심에서 인용된 위 청구 부분을 예비적 청구로 구하였고 항소심이 주위적 청구가 이유 있다고 인정하는 경우, 결론이 제1심판결의 주문과 동일하더라도 새로이 청구를 인용하는 주문을 선고하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the finding of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence fall within the exclusive authority of the court of fact-finding (in principle, affirmative) [2] Where, of the two claims that the plaintiff alternatively sought in the court of first instance, one claim was upheld, and the plaintiff, in changing the form of joinder in the appellate court, sought as the principal claim the portion of the claim not adjudicated in the court of first instance and as the alternative claim the portion of the claim upheld in the court of first instance, and the appellate court finds the principal claim meritorious, whether a new order upholding the claim must be rendered, even though the conclusion is identical to the order of the judgment of the court of first instance (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 법원은 변론 전체의 취지와 증거조사의 결과를 참작하여 자유로운 심증으로 논리와 경험의 법칙에 따라 사실주장이 진실한지 아닌지를 판단한다(민사소송법 제202조). 사실의 인정, 증거의 취사선택과 평가는 자유심증주의의 한계를 벗어나지 않는 한 사실심 법원의 전권사항이다. [2] 원고가 제1심에서 선택적으로 구한 두 개의 청구 중 1개의 청구가 인용되고 피고가 항소한 후, 원고가 항소심에서 병합의 형태를 변경하여 제1심에서 심판되지 않은 청구 부분을 주위적 청구로, 제1심에서 인용된 위 청구 부분을 예비적 청구로 구함에 따라 항소심이 주위적 청구 부분을 먼저 심리하여 그 청구가 이유 있다고 인정하는 경우에는, 비록 결론이 제1심판결의 주문과 동일하더라도 피고의 항소를 기각하여서는 아니 되고 새로이 청구를 인용하는 주문을 선고하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기한다. 원심에서 변경된 주위적 청구에 따라, 피고는 원고에게 38,090,000원과 이에 대하여 2013. 5. 16.부터 2016. 10. 12.까지는 연 5%의, 그 다음 날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 지급하라. 소송총비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed. Pursuant to the principal claim as changed in the court below, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 38,090,000 won and money calculated at the rate of 5% per annum thereon from May 16, 2013 to October 12, 2016, and at the rate of 15% per annum from the following day until the day of full payment. The costs of the entire action shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제202조 [2] 민사소송법 제208조, 제253조, 262조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger