Since an appeal is intended to seek a change of cancellation of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself, filing an appeal with the purport that the defendant who was rendered a judgment of retirement should accept the plaintiff's claim, is not allowed as there is no benefit of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu112, Apr. 14, 1987, etc.).

According to the records, the court of first instance dismissed the principal lawsuit of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") and dismissed the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as "the defendant")'s counterclaim. The defendant filed an appeal against the whole judgment, but the court of original instance dismissed all the defendant's appeal, and the defendant filed an appeal to the effect that the plaintiff's claim against the principal lawsuit should be accepted. Thus, the defendant's appeal against the principal lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in appeal.

2. As to the appeal on the counterclaim

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was caused by the failure of the plaintiff's principal liability, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

In addition, the court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, determined that the withdrawal of the principal suit by the plaintiff is reasonable to have withdrawn the intention to resolve the marriage with the defendant through the judgment, and in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is proper and there is no error of law in failing to exercise the plaintiff's right of explanation as to the plaintiff'

In addition, according to the records, even though it is objectively evident that the plaintiff had no intention to continue the marriage by reason that the plaintiff filed a multiple divorce lawsuit against the defendant and withdrawn it, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff did not comply with the divorce in a clerical error or retaliation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the ground of appeal on this point is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal on the principal lawsuit is dismissed, and the appeal on the counterclaim is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)