The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded.

A judgment requires that the conclusion be entered in the text of the judgment in order to clarify the judgment of the court; thus, the judgment on the case shall be deemed omitted unless the judgment is stated in the text; where the judgment is omitted, the lawsuit on the part shall continue to exist in the court, and thus, the appeal on that part shall not be lawful, since it does not constitute an object of appeal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da21323, Aug. 24, 2006; 2007Da69834, Nov. 27, 2008). According to the lower judgment and records, the lower court, while changing the first instance judgment according to the acquisition succession by the Defendants, did not make any judgment on the claims against the Republic of Korea, F, V, X, and AA, which were not withdrawn from the lawsuit.

According to the above legal principles, this constitutes omission of judgment, and thus, the above defendants' claim part lawsuit against the above defendants is still pending in the court below.

Therefore, the above Defendants’ appeal is unlawful as it is not subject to it.

2. We examine the remaining Defendants and the intervenors’ grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the lower court: (a) purchased part of the part of the AH land of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1,707 (hereinafter “AH land before the division”) before the division from Defendant Republic of Korea; and (b) sold part of the AH land before the division, which was completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 377.33/1,707 shares of the AH land before the division, to AI specifying its location and size; and (c) sold 24/1,707 shares of the AH land before the division.