소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant E shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C is dismissed.
3...
1. The Plaintiff’s appeal as to whether the appeal against Defendant E is lawful is intended to seek revocation or alteration of the judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself. Therefore, appeal against the judgment in favor of the appellant cannot be permitted, and whether the judgment is disadvantageous to the appellant should be determined based on the text of the judgment, in principle, on the basis of the standard at the time of filing the appeal. If the appellant’s claim is accepted in whole, there is no benefit of appeal even if there is a complaint in the reasoning of the judgment.
(see Supreme Court Decision 98Du11915, Nov. 10, 1998). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant E against the Plaintiff regarding the site stated in the separate sheet, seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on May 24, 2018 due to the sale by voluntary auction, and the first instance court rendered a judgment that fully accepts the claim portion against the above Defendant is obvious in the record. Thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant E is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.
2. The reasoning of this court’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant C is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(However, the part against Defendant E is excluded). 3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant E is unlawful and thus dismissed.
The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is accepted within the scope of the above recognition. Since the part concerning the defendant C among the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with its conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C is dismissed as it is without merit.