Summary
An amendment is permitted only when both the basis of the claim and the limits on timing and delay are satisfied.
2.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
분쟁을 고치는 자유는 상대방이 대비한 사건을 통째로 바꾸는 자유와 다르다. 요구가 달라지면 어느 범위에서 청구를 바꿀 수 있는가? 이 물음은 앞 절에서 정한 전제, 즉 객관적 병합은 같은 종류의 소송절차에 따르는 청구를 전제로 한다는 데서 출발한다. 그 전제 위에서 무엇을 남기고 무엇을 새로 더할 수 있는지를 묻는다. 그러므로 문제는 변경의 절대적인 자유가 아니라, 어떤 조건 아래에서만 통로가 열리는가에 놓인다.
해당 문언은 민사소송법 제262조 제1항에 놓여 있다. 조문은 "원고는 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도안에서 변론을 종결할 때(변론 없이 한 판결의 경우에는 판결을 선고할 때)까지 청구의 취지 또는 원인을 바꿀 수 있다"고 말한다. 여기서 원고가 바꿀 수 있는 것은 청구의 취지, 다시 말해 요구하는 급부의 지시이거나 청구의 원인, 다시 말해 그 요구를 뒷받침하는 사정이다. 바꿀 수 있는 시기는 변론종결 시까지로 한정되고, 변론 없이 판결하는 경우에는 판결 선고 시까지가 그 한계다.
같은 조문은 이어지는 단서에서 "소송절차를 현저히 지연시키는 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다"고 덧붙인다. 결국 변경이 허용되려면 두 가지 제한을 한꺼번에 넘어서야 한다. 하나는 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도라는 실체적 한계이고, 다른 하나는 현저한 지연을 일으키지 않는다는 절차적 한계다. 이 두 한계는 서로 다른 문제를 다룬다. 전자는 변경 전후의 청구가 같은 분쟁 위에 서 있는지를, 후자는 그 변경이 이미 진행 중인 심리를 붙들고 늦추는지를 본다. 이 두 한계를 함께 충족해야만 구제의 입구가 열린다.
새 사실에 맞추려면 기초의 변경도 허용해야 할 수 있다는 반론은, 소송 중에 드러난 사정을 끝까지 밖으로 밀어낼 수는 없다는 불편을 겨냥한다. 재판은 진행 중인 사건을 다루므로 요구가 달라진 현실을 외면하면 분쟁의 실질을 놓친다는 걱정이다. 그러나 저자의 답은 단호하다. 변론종결 전이면 모든 변경이 허용된다고 할 수는 없다. 상대방이 준비한 방어를 통째로 무력화할 변경까지 열어 준다면, 방어권의 손실과 심리의 지연이 함께 따라온다.
합성 장면에서 원고 A는 물건 인도를 청구하다가 손해배상도 요구하게 되었고 피고 B는 관련 채권을 반소로 제시하려 한다. 이 장면에서 이 물음에 걸맞은 사실은, 요구가 하나 더해졌다는 것과 관련 채권이 같은 심판 자리에 들어오려 한다는 점이다. 그러나 이 장면만으로는 손해배상 요구의 청구 기초가 인도 청구와 같은 분쟁의 기반 위에 서 있는지, 반소 채권이 어느 정도로 관련된지 판단할 수 없다. 만약 동일 기초라는 전제가 부정되는 것으로 확인되면 같은 소송 안의 변경 가능성을 다시 판단한다.
이 절이 허용하는 것은, 청구의 기초를 잃지 않는 범위 안에서 취지나 원인을 바꾸는 요구를 변론종결 전까지 내는 것이며, 그것도 현저한 지연을 동반하지 않을 때에 한한다. 허용되지 않는 것은, 기초를 바꾸거나 상대방의 방어를 뒤흔들어 심리를 늦추는 변경을 시기만을 이유로 받아들이는 것이다. 청구의 기초는 변경 전후 청구를 이어주는 분쟁의 기반을 뜻하며, 이 정의가 두 한계의 축이 된다.
2.2The Conditions That Block Relief
청구를 바꾸려는 움직임은 분쟁의 범위를 고치는 문제로 다가온다. 이 물음은 통로가 닫히는 조건을 함께 묻는다. 이어받은 전제는 객관적 병합이 같은 종류의 소송절차에 따르는 청구를 전제로 한다는 것이다. 앞 단계가 함께 제기할 수 있는 범위를 다루었다면, 이번 단계는 진행 중인 사건에서 청구를 고치는 통로가 어디서 막히는지를 살핀다.
이 물음에 해당하는 법문은 민사소송법 제262조 제1항이다. 그 문언은 「원고는 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도안에서 변론을 종결할 때(변론 없이 한 판결의 경우에는 판결을 선고할 때)까지 청구의 취지 또는 원인을 바꿀 수 있다. 다만, 소송절차를 현저히 지연시키는 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다」라고 정한다. 여기서 말하는 주체는 원고이고, 그 행위는 청구의 취지 또는 원인을 바꾸는 것이다. 이 문언이 정하는 조건은 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 않을 것과 시기가 변론 종결까지일 것, 그리고 소송절차를 현저히 지연시키지 않을 것을 함께 요구한다.
이 문언은 앞 문단에서 정의한 청구의 기초, 즉 변경 전후 청구를 이어주는 분쟁의 기반을 경계로 삼는다. 분쟁의 기반을 유지하는 한도 안에서만 청구의 취지나 원인을 바꿀 수 있다는 뜻이다. 그런데 그 한도와 시기·지연의 제한은 각기 다른 판단 단계를 이룬다. 청구의 기초가 유지되는지 묻는 판단과 변론 종결 전인지, 그리고 변경이 소송절차를 현저히 지연시키는지 묻는 판단은 서로를 대신할 수 없다. 이 가운데 어느 하나라도 허용 요건에 어긋나 법정 요건 중 하나가 충족되지 않으면 구제의 통로는 닫힌다.
가장 강한 반론은 새 사실에 맞추려면 기초의 변경도 허용해야 한다는 데 있다. 한 절차에 분쟁을 모으려다 심리가 늦어지고 방어권이 약해질 수 있다는 우려와 함께, 요구가 달라진 사정을 반영하지 못하면 분쟁을 한 번에 해결하기 어렵다는 손실과 불편이 지적된다. 문언이 청구의 기초라는 한도와 현저한 지연이라는 예외를 함께 두고 있으므로, 시기만 맞았다는 이유로 변경을 허용할 수는 없다. 반론이 지적한 심리의 지연과 방어권의 약화는 그대로 남는다.
이 가운데 이 물음에 닿는 사실은 원고 측 청구의 취지가 넓어졌다는 점이다. 손해배상 요구가 물건 인도 청구의 변경 신청에 실린다고 볼 때, 변경 전후 청구취지·청구 기초·변경신청·송달자료·반소장이 남기는 기록이 판단 자료가 된다. 다만 장면은 그 요구들이 같은 분쟁의 기반에서 나왔는지, 그리고 변경이 소송절차를 현저히 지연시키는지 여부를 정해 두지 않았다. 따라서 기초 유지와 지연 여부는 미확정으로 남는다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 원고가 변론 종결 전에 청구의 취지 또는 원인을 바꾸는 변경은, 변경 전후 청구를 이어주는 분쟁의 기반이 유지되고 소송절차를 현저히 지연시키지 않을 때만 이 구제의 통로를 지난다. 그 반대편에서, 청구의 기초를 바꾸는 변경이나 소송절차를 현저히 지연시키는 변경은 시기가 남아 있어도 막힌다. 반소 제시나 이 변경이 완성되는 시점 등 다른 물음은 여기서 다루지 않는다.
2.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
이 물음은 변경 전후 청구를 이어주는 분쟁의 기반, 곧 청구의 기초를 얼마나 유지하는지에 따라 갈린다. 앞 절에서는 변경이 청구의 기초를 바꾸거나 현저한 지연을 일으키는 등 해당 허용 요건에 어긋나는 경우에는 이 구제가 막힌다고 보았다. 그 판단을 전제로, 지금은 자료가 없어 판정할 수 없는 경계가 어디에 놓이는지를 묻는다. 구제가 실제로 막힌 경우와 아직 판단할 재료가 갖추어지지 않은 경우는 같은 상태가 아니다. 이 절은 그 둘 사이의 선을 어디에 긋는지를 다룬다.
해당 문언을 먼저 두면, 민사소송법 제262조 제1항은 “원고는 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도안에서 변론을 종결할 때(변론 없이 한 판결의 경우에는 판결을 선고할 때)까지 청구의 취지 또는 원인을 바꿀 수 있다”고 정한다(민사소송법 제262조). 이 문언에서 주체는 원고이고, 행위는 청구의 취지 또는 원인을 바꾸는 일이다. 조건은 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도라는 한정과 변론을 종결할 때까지라는 시점이 함께 놓인다는 데 있다. 다만 단서는 소송절차를 현저히 지연시키는 경우에는 이를 허용하지 않는다고 덧붙인다. 문언은 기초의 유지와 시기·지연의 제한을 각각 떼어 두지 않고 한 조항 안에서 함께 요구하고 있다.
따라서 이 문언과 앞서 확인한 결론을 잇는다. 변경이 허용되려면 청구의 기초와 시기·지연의 제한을 함께 충족해야 한다. 한 요건만 맞는다고 다른 요건까지 채워지는 것은 아니다. 새로 요구하려는 것이 무엇인지 분명하지 않거나, 그것이 기존 청구와 어떤 관계에 놓이는지가 정해지지 않았다면, 기초가 유지되는지조차 대조할 대상이 잡히지 않는다. 이 경우 판단을 서둘러 허용이나 불허로 몰아가지 않고 미확정으로 남긴다. 미확정은 조건 충족 여부가 자료 부족으로 확인되지 않은 상태를 뜻하며, 요건에 어긋나 그 구제가 막힌 경우와는 구별된다.
가장 강한 반론은 새 사실에 맞추려면 기초의 변경까지 허용해야 사건이 제대로 다뤄질 수 있다는 점을 겨눈다. 소송 중에 드러난 사정을 반영하지 못하면 방어권이 아니라 오히려 정의에 어긋날 수 있다는 손실과, 한 번에 분쟁을 모으지 못해 심리가 늦어지고 당사자가 다시 소를 내야 하는 불편이 그 뼈대다. 그러나 그렇더라도 변론종결 전이면 모든 변경이 허용된다고 할 수는 없다. 시기가 열려 있다는 사실 하나로 기초의 변경과 지연의 제한이 함께 사라지지 않는다. 반론이 지적한 방어권 약화는 이 구별에서 오히려 중요하다. 상대방이 대비한 사건이 통째로 바뀌지 않도록 하는 한정이 함께 작동하기 때문이다.
합성 장면에서 이 물음에 속한 사실만 꺼내 보자. 손해배상 요구가 무엇을 근거로 내세우는지, 물건 인도 청구와 어떤 분쟁의 기반을 함께 가지는지가 분명해지면 두 청구를 잇는 기초를 대조할 수 있다. 피고 B의 반소 청구가 같은 소송에 들어오는 조건은 이 절의 몫이 아니므로 여기서 다루지 않는다. 다만 장면만으로 손해배상 요구의 내용이나 두 요구 사이의 관계가 확정되었다고 할 수 없다. 그런 대목은 미확정으로 남는다. 자료가 모자란다는 사실 자체를 구제가 막힌 사유로 바꾸지는 않는다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 추가 요구가 무엇인지 또는 기존 청구와의 관계가 불분명한 경우에는 판정을 미확정으로 남기며, 이를 구제가 막힌 경우와 구별한다. 판정을 미확정으로 둔다는 것은 그 요구를 배척하거나 받아들인다는 뜻이 아니고, 요건에 어긋나 그 통로가 닫혔다는 뜻도 아니다. 한편 변론종결 전이라는 시점만으로 어떤 변경이든 허용된다고 읽는 것은 이 절의 결론이 아니다. 청구의 기초가 무엇인지는 앞서 정의한 대로 변경 전후 청구를 이어주는 분쟁의 기반이다.
2.4The Records Needed for Determination
객관적 병합은 같은 종류의 소송절차에 따르는 청구를 전제로 한다. 이 장면은 실제 사건의 재현이 아니라 합성된 가정이다. 요구가 달라지면 어느 범위에서 청구를 바꿀 수 있는가, 그리고 그 판단을 하려면 어떤 기록이 필요한지가 지금의 물음이다.
이 물음에 답하는 문언이 민사소송법 제262조에 있다. 확인한 제262조 제1항은 “①원고는 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도안에서 변론을 종결할 때(변론 없이 한 판결의 경우에는 판결을 선고할 때)까지 청구의 취지 또는 원인을 바꿀 수 있다.”고 정하고, 바로 이어서 “다만, 소송절차를 현저히 지연시키는 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다.”고 단서를 둔다. 이 문언에서 주체는 원고이고, 행위는 청구의 취지 또는 원인을 바꾸는 변경이며, 시기는 변론종결 때 또는 변론 없이 한 판결의 경우에는 판결 선고 때까지이다.
따라서 변경이 허용되려면 문언이 함께 요구하는 조건들이 성립해야 한다. 첫째는 청구의 기초가 바뀌지 아니하는 한도라는 조건이고, 둘째는 변론종결 전이라는 시기 조건이며, 셋째는 소송절차를 현저히 지연시키지 않는다는 단서이다. 이 중 어느 하나라도 충족되지 않으면 같은 소송 안에서의 변경은 열리지 않는다. 여기서 청구의 기초는 변경 전후 청구를 이어주는 분쟁의 기반을 뜻한다. 손해배상 요구로 바뀐 청구가 물건 인도 청구와 같은 분쟁의 기반 위에 놓이는지, 아니면 새로운 기반을 더하는지가 이 정의로 가려진다.
새 사실에 맞추려면 기초의 변경도 허용해야 할 수 있다는 반론이 있다. 이 반론은 한 절차에 분쟁을 모으려다 심리가 늦어지고 방어권이 약해질 수 있다는 손실과 불편을 함께 겨냥한다. 시기 요건만으로는 기초 유지 요건과 현저한 지연이라는 단서를 대신할 수 없고, 상대방이 대비한 방어 범위가 통째로 달라지는 경우는 그 변경이 허용되는 범위 밖에 놓인다. 반론이 지적한 심리 지연의 불리함은 지워지지 않으며, 그 불리함은 오히려 변경 요건이 함께 요구되는 까닭을 설명한다.
이 절의 판정은 정해진 기록으로만 한다. 변경 전후 청구취지·청구 기초·변경신청·송달자료·반소장에 기록된 자료가 그 정해진 기록이다. 원고 A는 손해배상 요구를 더하고 피고 B는 관련 채권을 반소로 제시하려는 장면에서, 변경 전후 청구취지가 무엇인지, 두 청구를 이어주는 기반이 같은지, 변경신청이 언제 어떻게 제출되었고 송달이 이루어졌는지, 반소장에 무엇이 적혔는지는 오직 이 자료들로 확인된다. 없는 기록을 추정으로 메우지 않으며, 실제 사건의 사실·송달·이행 결과나 장면에 없는 연도·금액·기산일·판결 결과는 확정할 수 없다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 청구의 기초와 시기·지연의 제한을 함께 충족해야 변경이 허용되고, 그 충족 여부는 정해진 기록에 담긴 자료만으로 판정한다. 허용되지 않는 것은 변론종결 전이라는 이유만으로 모든 변경이 허용된다고 보는 것이며, 미확정으로 남는 것은 추가 요구가 무엇인지 불분명하거나 기존 청구와의 관계가 불분명한 경우이다. 법적 통로가 열렸다는 것은 실지급·인도·회수의 성과까지 뜻하지 않는다.
2.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
On the premise that objective joinder presupposes claims that follow the same type of litigation proceedings, Plaintiff A, having claimed delivery of an object, has come to demand damages as well, and Defendant B seeks to present the related claim by counterclaim. In this scene, when is it permissible to place the changed demands within the same lawsuit? And what kind of amendment renders the stage determination previously reached void?
The text governing this question is set out in Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 262, paragraph (1) provides: "(1) The plaintiff may, within the limits of not changing the basis of the claim, change the content or the grounds of the claim until the conclusion of oral argument (in the case of a judgment rendered without oral argument, until the pronouncement of the judgment); provided, however, that this shall not apply where such change would cause a considerable delay in the litigation proceedings." This text confines the actor of the act to the plaintiff, the permissible act to a change of the content or the grounds of the claim, and the time limit for permission to the time of the conclusion of oral argument or the time of the pronouncement of judgment.
The same text makes clear that, for an amendment to be permitted, two limitations must be satisfied simultaneously. One is that it must fall within the limits of not changing the basis of the claim—that is, the foundation of the dispute that connects the claims before and after the amendment must remain unchanged. The other is the temporal and practical limitation that the amendment must not cause a considerable delay in the litigation proceedings. These two limitations are separate steps of determination, and the fact that one is satisfied cannot by itself be taken to satisfy the other. Even where there is no delay, if the basis is changed, the amendment is not permitted under this text; and even where the basis is maintained, if the delay is considerable, the same result follows.
The demand that a change of the basis also be permitted in order to accommodate new facts is not in itself a light one. If the scope of the dispute has emerged during the course of the examination and yet remains bound to the former basis, the substantive dispute may fail to be resolved at once and may be scattered into separate procedures. Wholly altering the scope of the case on which the opposing party has prepared means that the defense must be prepared anew, and this is an inconvenience not merely of delay but concerning the right of defense itself. As set out above, an amendment is permitted only within the scope in which the maintenance of the basis and the absence of delay are confirmed together; other amendments cannot be brought into the same lawsuit.
In the synthetic scene, Plaintiff A has come to add the demand for damages to the preexisting claim for delivery of an object, and Defendant B seeks to present the related claim by counterclaim. Whether delivery of the object and damages rest together on the foundation of the dispute that connects the claims before and after the amendment, or instead rest on different foundations, cannot be determined from this scene alone. If the premise of an identical basis is negated, the possibility of amendment within the same lawsuit is reassessed. The facts of the actual case, and the results of service and performance, and the years and amounts and the date from which the period runs that lie outside the scene, are unverified.
The conclusion this section permits is that, however the demands may change, an amendment is permitted only when the limitations of the basis of the claim and of timing and delay are satisfied together. If the specified amendment is confirmed, the existing determination of blocking and of effectiveness is discarded, and the stage adjudication is redone from the beginning. The conclusion it does not permit is to regard every amendment as permissible on the sole ground that it precedes the conclusion of oral argument. It also remains that the outcomes of actual payment, delivery, and recovery cannot be fixed in this section.
2.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
In line with the view that, in scenes where demands change, a change of the basis may also have to be permitted in order to accommodate new facts, the question that remains for this section is the range within which the claim may be changed.
The source text corresponding to this question is Article 262, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act (Civil Procedure Act Article 262). Its text provides that the plaintiff may, within the limits of not changing the basis of the claim, change the content or the grounds of the claim until the conclusion of oral argument, with the proviso that this shall not apply where such change would cause a considerable delay in the litigation proceedings (Civil Procedure Act Article 262). The actor indicated by this text is the plaintiff; the act is a change of the content or the grounds of the claim; and the conditions are the limit that the basis of the claim is not changed, the timing of being before the conclusion of oral argument, and the absence of a considerable delay. The basis of the claim means the foundation of the dispute that connects the claims before and after the amendment.
The link joining this ground to the conclusion is precisely the limitation of the basis. However the demands may change, if the foundation of the dispute connects the claims before and after the amendment, the content or the grounds may be corrected within the same lawsuit; but if that foundation is replaced altogether, a new dispute enters. The reason these two must be distinguished is that one is a revision that refines the same case, while the other is a substitution that makes the case which the opposing party did not prepare for be examined anew. Accordingly, an amendment is permitted only when the limitations of the basis of the claim and of timing and delay are satisfied together.
The strongest counterargument lies in the proposition that a change of the basis may also have to be permitted in order to accommodate new facts. At stake together are the harm that, in a case where the substance has changed, the opposing party is left unable to defend against the lawsuit; the inconvenience that the lawsuit is delayed by having once again to prepare defense materials for that defense; and the value of resolving the dispute in a single forum. Even so, this view cannot assert that every amendment is permissible so long as it precedes the conclusion of oral argument. However great the inconvenience targeted by the counterargument, a change of the basis is in itself a different dispute; and going beyond the ground of delay to overstep the limitation of the basis as well is not permitted by this text.
The facts confirmed in this scene are only that the demands have changed and that the defendant seeks to present the related claim by counterclaim. Only the content of the claim before and after the amendment, the basis of the claim, the motion to amend, the service materials, and the counterclaim pleading are set as the materials for determination. Accordingly, whether it is an amendment that preserves the basis, whether the necessary service has been made, and whether there is a considerable delay cannot be determined from the scene alone and remain undetermined. As no year, amount, or time period is set in this scene, no conclusion expressed in figures can be drawn either.
Therefore, the conclusion this section permits is that an amendment is permitted only when the limitations of the basis of the claim and of timing and delay are satisfied together; and the conclusion it does not permit is that every amendment is permissible so long as it precedes the conclusion of oral argument. The inconvenience of the right of defense and of delay emphasized by the counterargument remains, but that does not mean that amendments changing the basis are also opened up. Since from the scene alone whether the actual amendment has been completed cannot be determined, that question remains one to be decided according to the records.
2.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
In this scene, the procedural channel to be addressed differs according to whether the direction of the changing demands is one of addition or one of substitution. The task of placing an increased demand within the same lawsuit has already been addressed in the preceding section, while this section takes up the limited question of amendments that revise and insert into the existing claim. On the premise that it cannot be said that every amendment is permissible so long as it precedes the conclusion of oral argument, it explains the conclusion that an amendment is permitted only when the limitations of the basis of the claim and of timing and delay are satisfied together.
It provides: "(1) The plaintiff may, within the limits of not changing the basis of the claim, change the content or the grounds of the claim until the conclusion of oral argument (in the case of a judgment rendered without oral argument, until the pronouncement of the judgment); provided, however, that this shall not apply where such change would cause a considerable delay in the litigation proceedings" (Civil Procedure Act Article 262). This text confines the actor of the amendment to the plaintiff, the object of the amendment to the content or the grounds of the claim, and the time limit for the amendment to the time of the conclusion of oral argument or, in the case of a judgment rendered without oral argument, the time of the pronouncement of judgment. Here, the content of the claim denotes the substance of the judgment the plaintiff wishes to obtain, and the grounds of the claim denote the factual relations supporting that claim; the two stand together as objects capable of amendment.
This text does not set the conditions for permitting an amendment as a single requirement, but demands the maintenance of the basis together with the limitations of timing and delay. The basis of the claim means the foundation of the dispute that connects the claims before and after the amendment, and the content or grounds may be corrected only within the scope in which that foundation is maintained. At the same time, the point in time at which the amendment is made must not go beyond the conclusion of oral argument or the pronouncement of judgment; and where the amendment would cause a considerable delay in the litigation proceedings, it is not permitted even if the timing condition is satisfied. If the limitation of the basis is a device that safeguards the scope of the case on which the opposing party has mounted its defense, the limitations of timing and delay are a device that safeguards the flow of the proceedings in which the amendment is made, and neither of the two is sufficient on its own.
The counterargument that a change of the basis may also have to be permitted in order to accommodate new facts targets the case where the facts revealed in the lawsuit depart from what was anticipated at the time the complaint was drafted. If the demands have changed but the basis cannot be changed, the plaintiff may fail to obtain a judgment fitting the new facts, and may have to transfer the same dispute to another lawsuit and contest it again. If the case on which the opposing party has prepared is altered altogether, the direction of the defense must be reset, and the examination already conducted may be unsettled, delaying the adjudication. Accordingly, an amendment changing the basis lies outside the scope set by this section; and if it is to be obtained within the same lawsuit, it must remain an amendment within the scope that preserves the basis.
In the scene where Plaintiff A, having claimed delivery of an object, has come to demand damages as well, and Defendant B seeks to present the related claim by counterclaim, it must first be determined what relationship the demand for damages bears to the claim for delivery. If the damages change only the content of the performance on the basis of the claim for delivery, this falls under the content of the claim and may be treated as an amendment within the scope that preserves the same basis. Conversely, if the demand for damages stands on a foundation of dispute different from the claim for delivery, this is a change in the basis of the claim and does not fall within the scope of amendment permitted by this section. The defendant's counterclaim concerns a channel separate from the plaintiff's amendment, and from this scene alone it cannot be determined whether the statutory relatedness of the counterclaim or the requirement of service is satisfied. As things stand, where the foundation on which the relationship between the two demands rests has not been determined, whether the amendment is permitted cannot be fixed.
The conclusion this section permits is that, within the scope in which the basis of the claim is maintained, until the conclusion of oral argument or the pronouncement of judgment, and in cases where no considerable delay is caused in the litigation proceedings, the content or the grounds of the claim may be changed. An amendment going beyond that scope to change the basis itself cannot be said to be permitted within the same lawsuit; nor are all amendments accepted on the sole ground that they precede the conclusion of oral argument.
2.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
Having, in the preceding section, summarized that an amendment is permitted only when the limitations of the basis of the claim and of timing and delay are satisfied together, the present question asks how such a conclusion connects with the premise received earlier. To confirm the range within which amendment of the claim is permitted where demands have changed, the starting point for permitting the amendment must first be made clear.
That starting point is the provision on amendment of the claim. It provides: "(1) The plaintiff may, within the limits of not changing the basis of the claim, change the content or the grounds of the claim until the conclusion of oral argument (in the case of a judgment rendered without oral argument, until the pronouncement of the judgment); provided, however, that this shall not apply where such change would cause a considerable delay in the litigation proceedings" (Civil Procedure Act Article 262). Here the actor is the plaintiff, and the act is the amendment that changes the content or the grounds of the claim. The conditions are set out in two branches. The first is the limit that the claims before and after the amendment must rest on the same basis; the second is the restriction that it must fall within the time before the conclusion of oral argument and must not cause a considerable delay.
This text is read in the same line as the conclusion of the preceding section. Placing the limit that the basis is not changed as the first condition means that the demands may be refined only while the foundation of the dispute that connects the claims before and after the amendment is preserved. The limitations of timing and delay mark together the point that even an amendment on the same basis is not always accepted. Because the premise is laid down that objective joinder presupposes claims that follow the same type of litigation proceedings, an amendment connecting the basis is confined to the task of adjusting the shape of the claim within that premise. If amendment of the claim is the channel that gathers a dispute into one set of proceedings, that channel opens only within the scope that preserves the basis.
The counterargument that a change of the basis may also have to be permitted in order to accommodate new facts targets the point that, if the adjustment to the reality of changed demands is not made, the party is given an opportunity to defend yet is left without a substantive examination. Taking into account even the position of the defendant who seeks to present the related claim by counterclaim, if the basis is narrowly confined there remains the inconvenience that one side of the dispute must proceed by a separate procedure. Even so, it cannot be said that every amendment is permissible so long as it precedes the conclusion of oral argument. The requirement that blocks the amendment also contains the concern that the defendant's right of defense may be weakened through delay of the proceedings, and this concern is not one to be dispelled by widening the limitation of the basis. The loss pointed out by the counterargument is left in place, but the conclusion that amendment within the same lawsuit becomes a channel receiving all demands is not reached.
In the scene where Plaintiff A comes to demand damages in addition to the claim for delivery, and Defendant B seeks to put forward the related claim by counterclaim, the facts touching on this question are only the foundation of the claims before and after the amendment and the timing of the motion to amend. The shape of the content of the claim before and after the amendment, the basis of the claim, the motion to amend, the service materials, and the counterclaim pleading are not set. Whether the demand for damages rests on the same basis as the claim for delivery, and what relatedness the claim sought to be put forward by counterclaim bears, also cannot be determined from the scene alone. Accordingly, this scene illuminates only the condition of an amendment that preserves the basis, cannot fix the actual question of permission, while the remaining relations among the demands remain undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits extends only to amendments that preserve the basis and do not overstep the limitations of timing and delay taken together. The place for changing the claim within the same lawsuit remains within that limited scope, and if the premise of the same basis is negated, the possibility of amendment within the same lawsuit is reassessed. Conversely, this section does not stand for the conclusion that amendments that change the basis altogether or that cause delay are also permitted. How does the text of Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act support this conclusion?
2.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
Since the channel for inserting a new claim into a pending case must be determined on the wording of the source provision alone, the freedom to modify the dispute differs from the freedom to change the case prepared by the opposing party in its entirety.
The original provision, Article 262(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, declares: "① The plaintiff may change the object or cause of the claim, within the limit that the basis of the claim does not change, until the conclusion of oral argument (in the case of a judgment without oral argument, until the judgment is pronounced)." The party directly designated by this wording is the plaintiff, and the conduct it regulates is amendment of the object or cause of the claim. The scope in which an amendment takes effect is bounded by the limit that the basis of the claim does not change, and the permitted time is until the conclusion of oral argument.
Linking this wording with the conclusion of this section, the ground for determining the channel for inserting a new claim into a pending case is confined to the wording of that source provision. Accordingly, an amendment is permitted only when both the basis of the claim and the limitation as to time and delay are satisfied together. Here, the basis of the claim means the foundation of the dispute that links the claims before and after the amendment, and the limitation as to time and delay means the restriction defined by the point of the conclusion of oral argument and by the case of materially delaying the litigation proceedings. These two determinations lie at different stages, so the satisfaction of one alone cannot be taken to mean that the other is satisfied as well.
The counterargument that, in order to accommodate new facts, a change in the basis should also be permitted, is aimed at the loss that, once the scope of the dispute takes concrete shape during the lawsuit, the substantive resolution of the dispute should take precedence over the opposing party's right of defense. Because the wording requires both the identity of the basis and the limitation as to time and delay, the mere fact that the convenience emphasized by the counterargument comes first does not lead to the conclusion of permitting an expanded amendment. The inconveniences pointed out by the counterargument—delay in adjudication and the weakening of the right of defense—likewise do not disappear.
In the scene where Plaintiff A, having claimed delivery of an object, also came to demand damages, and Defendant B intends to raise a related claim by way of a counterclaim, the question is within what range the changed portion of the demand may be treated as an amendment of the claim. On the premise that the foundation of the dispute linking the claims before and after the amendment is maintained, one examines whether the basis of the claim and the limitation as to time and delay are satisfied together. Since the scene alone cannot determine whether the requirements for service and for the counterclaim are met, that part remains undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits goes no further than taking the wording of the source provision as the ground for determination and jointly examining the basis of the claim and the limitation as to time and delay. The scope of admissibility of new claims cannot be widened by extending the reasons for a judgment, nor can it be held that every amendment is permitted merely because it precedes the conclusion of oral argument.
2.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
The move to amend the claim the moment the demand changes always leaves the same problem. On the premise that joinder of claims presupposes claims that follow the same type of litigation proceedings, the freedom to modify the dispute differs from the freedom to change the case prepared by the opposing party in its entirety. Within the channel for inserting a new claim into a pending case, it remains to ask within what range the plaintiff may amend the claim. The present question is devoted to identifying the conditions that determine that range. The boundary that divides the amendments the procedure permits from those it does not permit is revealed here.
The statute corresponding to this question is Article 262 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Its wording is as follows: "① The plaintiff may amend the object or cause of the claim until the conclusion of oral argument (in the case of a judgment rendered without oral argument, until the pronouncement of the judgment) to the extent that the basis of the claim does not change. However, this shall not apply where the litigation proceedings are materially delayed." The party spoken of in this Article is the plaintiff, and the act is amending the object or cause of the claim. The limit within which amendment is possible is defined as the range in which the basis of the claim does not change, and the time is open until the conclusion of oral argument. In the case of a judgment rendered without oral argument, the point is until the pronouncement of the judgment. Further, where the litigation proceedings are materially delayed, it is closed as an exception.
Therefore, for an amendment to be permitted, both the limitation on the basis of the claim and the limitation as to time and delay must be satisfied together. This foundation is the frame that makes the claims before and after the amendment continue within one dispute rather than being different disputes. The conditions of time and delay are thresholds separate from the basis. Even before the conclusion of oral argument, an amendment that changes the basis does not open within this restriction; and even where the basis is maintained, an amendment that materially delays the litigation proceedings is closed. This channel operates where the statutory relevance and procedural requirements of joinder, amendment, and counterclaim are satisfied and the necessary service has been made. Where the amendment contravenes the applicable admissibility requirements—such as by changing the basis of the claim or causing material delay—it is blocked. Where it is unclear what the demand is, or what its relationship to the existing claim is, the matter remains undetermined.
The counterargument that, in order to accommodate new facts, a change in the basis should also be permitted, squarely confronts the inconvenience faced by the opposing party. The loss is that, when new circumstances emerge during the lawsuit, the original frame of the dispute alone cannot handle them, and an amendment that does not change the basis cannot contain the new demand. From the opposing party's standpoint, the risk grows that the object of defense will change in the course of the case and the defense prepared will become useless. The inconvenience also remains that, if several demands are gathered into one proceeding, adjudication may be prolonged and the right of defense weakened. Even then, the condition that the basis of the claim does not change and the condition that there is no material delay are required together. These conditions serve not to widen the door of amendment but to keep it within a set range.
In the synthetic scene, the facts corresponding to this question are limited. Plaintiff A, having claimed delivery of an object, also came to demand damages. Defendant B intends to raise a related claim by way of a counterclaim. This scene was set to take the claim object and the basis of the claim before and after the amendment, the application for amendment, the service materials, and the counterclaim pleading as its yardsticks. These records are the material for ascertaining what demand has been added and how that demand connects with the existing claim. The counterclaim is an independent claim brought by the defendant, and so is examined separately from the plaintiff's amendment. The scene contains no year, amount, accrual date, or judgment result, and so none is determined here. This comparison is not a fact that actually occurred, but merely a test that alters one condition of determination for comparison.
The conclusion this section permits remains within the distinction of the stated conditions. Within the range where the basis of the claim is maintained, if the conditions of time and delay are satisfied together, the amendment is open; if the basis changes or material delay is caused, it is closed. Where it is unclear what the demand is or what its relationship to the existing claim is, the matter must be left undetermined. Undetermined does not immediately mean that no relief is available. Conversely, if one reads it as permitting any amendment merely because it precedes the conclusion of oral argument, this boundary is lost. Whether an amendment is completed by writing the new demand into the statement also remains a separate question that must pass this threshold.
2.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
This question is one of determining when the channel for inserting a new claim into a pending case opens, when it is blocked, and when judgment must necessarily be deferred. Before adding the circumstances found in precedents, the criteria distinguishing the three states of the channel must first be established.
Article 262 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act defines the permissible scope of amendment of a claim in its wording. It provides: 「① The plaintiff may amend the object or cause of the claim until the conclusion of oral argument (in the case of a judgment rendered without oral argument, until the pronouncement of the judgment) to the extent that the basis of the claim does not change. However, this shall not apply where the litigation proceedings are materially delayed.」 (Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act). The party designated by this wording is the plaintiff, the act is amendment of the object or cause of the claim, and the condition is the joint satisfaction of the invariability of the basis and the limitation as to time and delay.
The reason these conditions are required together is that time and basis are different stages of determination. The timing requirement of being before the conclusion of oral argument merely fixes when an amendment may be attempted; whether the basis has changed is a separate determination asking whether the foundation of the dispute that links the claims before and after the amendment is the same. The amendment does not open merely because one of the two is satisfied. Together with joinder premised on claims that follow the same type of litigation proceedings, an amendment too becomes a channel that is effective only when it passes these two axes simultaneously.
The counterargument that, in order to accommodate new facts, a change in the basis must be permitted, is aimed at the loss that, if the circumstances revealed during the lawsuit are not reflected, the substantive resolution of the dispute is distorted. The answer of this section makes its limitation clear. For an amendment of a claim to be effective, the statutory relevance and procedural requirements of joinder, amendment, and counterclaim must be satisfied and the necessary service must be made; where the amendment contravenes the applicable admissibility requirements—such as by changing the basis of the claim or causing material delay—the channel is blocked. The disadvantage of the weakening of the right of defense pointed out by the counterargument does not soften this limitation.
Whether these demands are bound to the same foundation of the dispute, and whether the application for amendment, the service materials, and the counterclaim pleading meet the procedural requirements, can be determined by reference to the foregoing conditions. However, where it is unclear what the additional demand is or what its relationship to the existing claim is, the matter remains undetermined. The actual records and the result of performance, which are not in the scene, are not confirmed and so cannot be asserted here.
The conclusion this section permits is that an amendment that satisfies both the invariability of the basis and the limitation as to time and delay opens the channel, and that an amendment falling outside the admissibility requirements is blocked. Undetermined is a lack of material and does not immediately mean that no relief is available. One may determine the matter again at the time when the nature of the demand becomes clear.
2.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
In such a scene where the demand changes, the question is whether, once a new claim is inserted into one case, it can be adjudicated in the same lawsuit, or whether a separate proceeding must be gone through. Here one must examine the points at which the convenience of gathering the dispute within one proceeding and the value of the opposing party's preparation of a defense operate differently.
Article 262 of the Civil Procedure Act defines the range within which the plaintiff may amend a claim as follows: "① The plaintiff may amend the object or cause of the claim until the conclusion of oral argument (in the case of a judgment rendered without oral argument, until the pronouncement of the judgment) to the extent that the basis of the claim does not change. However, this shall not apply where the litigation proceedings are materially delayed." In this wording the party is the plaintiff, the act is the amendment of changing the object or cause of the claim, and the conditions are that the basis of the claim does not change, that the time is before the conclusion of oral argument, and that the litigation proceedings are not materially delayed. These three must be satisfied together, and it cannot be said that an amendment is permitted on any one of them alone.
The limitation on the basis and the limitation as to time and delay fixed by the Article address different questions. The limitation on the basis inquires into what relationship the amended claim bears to the previous claim, while the limitation as to time and delay fixes when and at what speed that amendment can take place within the procedure. Therefore, the mere fact that an application for amendment was filed before the conclusion of oral argument does not complete the amendment. Whether the basis of the claim has changed must be examined together, and here the basis of the claim means the foundation of the dispute that links the claims before and after the amendment. The act of writing the new demand into the claim's object or cause does not in itself establish the identity of the basis, and the determinations at the two stages cannot substitute for one another.
The counterargument that, in order to accommodate new facts, a change in the basis should also be permitted, points out the loss that, if the circumstances revealed within the lawsuit are not reflected, the substance of the dispute cannot be dealt with. In that the background to Plaintiff A's adding of a damages demand includes circumstances that are difficult to handle by a claim for delivery of an object alone, such inconvenience is hard to ignore. This is because the defense prepared by the opposing party may change in its entirety, and if adjudication is delayed, the advantage of gathering the dispute into one proceeding is rather diluted. The answer of this section is not to prohibit amendment outright, but to permit within the same lawsuit only those amendments that clear both the maintenance of the basis and the limitation as to time and delay.
What this section addresses among these is the question whether the amendment of the claim by Plaintiff A can be accepted within the same case. The determination differs according to what content is contained in the claim object and the basis of the claim before and after the amendment, the application for amendment, the service materials, and the counterclaim pleading. Therefore, whether the damages demand stands on the same basis as the claim for delivery of an object, and whether the application for amendment causes material delay, cannot be determined here.
What can be confirmed in this section is the boundary that not every amendment is completed merely because the demand changes, and that an amendment within the same lawsuit is permitted only when both the maintenance of the basis and the limitation as to time and delay are satisfied together. It cannot be categorically asserted that an amendment is finalized merely by writing the new demand into the statement; conversely, an amendment cannot be deemed impossible merely because a new demand has been introduced. Whether the foundation of the dispute that links the claims before and after the amendment is maintained, and whether the amendment does not slow the procedure, are the remaining criteria of determination. Does writing the new demand into the statement complete the amendment?