정산금반환 등 청구의 소
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the defendant corporation's earthp engineering office shall be revoked.
(e).
1. We examine the part concerning the part of the defendant-appellant's office (hereinafter "ppex engineering") among the lawsuit of this case, ex officio of the determination of the claim against the defendant-appellant's office.
In subjective and preliminary co-litigation stipulated in Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 67 through 69 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to subjective and preliminary co-litigation, and the unification of litigation materials and proceedings is required. However, each co-litigants who waives or recognize a claim, compromise, and take the lawsuit may be co-litigants. In light of the above, if a decision in lieu of conciliation becomes final and conclusive, it has the same effect as a judicial compromise, and if some co-litigants do not raise any objection against such decision, in principle, a decision in lieu
However, in light of the purport of the decision, such as where a separate confirmation is denied in a decision substituting conciliation, or where interests are adjusted on the premise that the matters prescribed in the decision form a common legal relationship among co-litigants, if the separate confirmation is permitted, it is against equity, and where the result is brought about contrary to the legislative intent of the main sentence of Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act for the purpose of unification of litigation among co-litigants with conflicting interests, it is not allowed to separate confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da57872, Jul. 10, 2008; 2014Da75202, Mar. 20, 2015). The first instance court’s decision on August 30, 2016, when it does not allow the separate confirmation to be made, then it is not allowed to grant the Plaintiff a refund of the said amount from 71,902,621 to 15,2016.
The plaintiff remains.