A. In addition, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for damages and return of unjust enrichment, and filed a claim against the Intervenor for confirmation of ownership of each of the items listed in [Attachment 1] List 1, the Intervenor filed a claim against the Defendant for compensation for damages and return of unjust enrichment, and the Plaintiff filed a claim for confirmation of ownership of each item listed in [Attachment 2] List 2.

B. Accordingly, the first instance court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim and the Intervenor’s claim, while rendering a judgment of the first instance court that dismissed all of the claims in the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and the part of the Intervenor’s application for intervention. The Defendant appealed on the part of the claim partially accepted, but the Plaintiff and the Intervenor did not appeal.

C. However, in the hearing and determination of a claim against the Defendant, this Court does not recognize the need for further review and determination of the claim, even if the Plaintiff and the Intervenor did not appeal for the final decision of the conclusion, in order to ensure the consistency of the conclusion between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Intervenor.

Therefore, the part concerning the Plaintiff’s claim against the Intervenor and the part concerning the Intervenor’s claim against the Plaintiff are excluded from the scope of the trial in this Court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da86573, 86580, Oct. 26, 2007). 2. The part cited by the judgment of the court of first instance on Oct. 26

A. Of the judgment of the first instance, “from April 2015 to November 30, 2015” in the part “from April 5, 2015.”

B. 14. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, whether “whether all were appropriated or not” in the part “as appropriated or not.”

C. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “No. 6, 18 evidence” in the part of “No. 16, 16 evidence”

D. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning for this case is as follows: (a) the part “300 million won” in the part “30 million won” below 25 billion and the part which appears to be an obvious error or clerical error in the judgment of first instance and its meaning need to be clearly stated.