A. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for restitution according to the rescission of the contract and compensation for damages, which was based on the Defendant’s incomplete performance, with respect to the purchase contract for an individual movable property, and filed a claim for restitution according to the cancellation of the contract, which was based on an error in the important part of the said purchase contract.

The first instance court dismissed the main claim and partly accepted the main claim, and rejected the main claim without distinguishing the main claim from the main claim and the conjunctive claim, and indicated that the remainder is dismissed.

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed against it.

B. In a case where the court of the first instance appealed against the dismissal of the main claim and the pronouncement of the judgment citing only the conjunctive claim, the main claim cannot be the subject of adjudication unless there is any incidental appeal by the plaintiff, since the effect of the appeal is naturally limited to the whole of the case and the part concerning the main claim is also remanded to the appellate court. However, the scope of the appellate court's trial is limited to the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of the first instance which accepted the conjunctive claim by the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Meu852 delivered on December 26, 2002). C.

Therefore, in this case where only the defendant appealed against the defendant, and the plaintiff did not file an incidental appeal, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim.

2. The grounds for this part of the lower court’s reasoning are as follows: “The Plaintiff shall be between the Defendant and the Defendant on October 20, 2014” under Section 8 of the first instance judgment, stating that “The Plaintiff shall be between the Defendant and the Defendant on September 20, 2014 (hereinafter “instant unit”) announced the public announcement of two types of purchase for the first class of movable property on September 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant public announcement of tender”); and that the Defendant managing the headquarters of the headquarters of the Army Headquarters of the Plaintiff-affiliated Army headquarters in the Army on October 20, 2014, between the Defendant and the Defendant selected as the successful bidder during the instant public tender procedure.”