[2] The case holding that in a case where the designated parties and the designated parties sought the refund of the security deposit at the first instance trial and sought it first and the claim for the refund of the security deposit at the first instance trial, and the claim for the refund of the security deposit at the second instance was changed to be a preliminary claim, the case holding that since each of the claims for the refund of the security deposit by the designated parties and the designated parties' respective claims for the refund of the security deposit at the second instance are in a relationship of subjective and preliminary co-litigation, all of the above loans

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff (appointed party) 355,00,000 won and 20% interest per annum from April 21, 2007 to the full payment day.

B. All claims by the remaining designated parties except the plaintiff (appointed parties) are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation cost, the part between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendant shall be borne by the appointed parties, other than the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remainder between the Defendant, respectively.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the payment of the above loan or indemnity amount on the ground that the plaintiff (the appointed party, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") had a claim of KRW 350 million (399 billion - 44 million) such as the loan or indemnity amount for the limited partnership comprehensive construction (hereinafter referred to as "limited to the limited partnership comprehensive construction") with endorsement of promissory notes and the substitute loan, etc., but the defendant took over the above loan or indemnity amount against the plaintiff of the limited partnership comprehensive construction. The court below accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the payment of the above loan or indemnity amount on the ground that the defendant took over the above loan or indemnity amount against the plaintiff of the limited partnership comprehensive construction, as alleged in the grounds for appeal, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. It shall be deemed ex officio.

According to the records, the plaintiff and the designated parties (referring to the designated parties other than the plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) sought the return of each lease deposit under each lease contract in the first instance court, and they subsequently seek the plaintiff's loan or the claim for the reimbursement of each lease deposit (hereinafter referred to as "lease claim") from the plaintiff's ordinary construction at the lower court, and they subsequently seek it in the first instance court, and the plaintiff and the designated parties sought the return of each of the above lease deposits from the plaintiff and the designated parties. As such, the lower court did not err by citing the plaintiff's claim for the entire loan, but did not err by citing the plaintiff's claim for the refund of each lease deposit

However, the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of each security deposit is a subjective and preliminary co-litigation relationship under Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act (the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of security deposit has an objective and preliminary consolidation relationship with the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan), and such subjective and preliminary co-litigation is a litigation form in which all co-litigants settle the dispute between themselves in the same legal relationship in a lump sum without inconsistency with one litigation procedure, and it is not allowed to render a judgment only for some co-litigants or to render an additional judgment for the remaining co-litigants (Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act).

In light of the above legal principles, even if all of the Plaintiff’s claims for loans were accepted, the lower court did not render a judgment as to the conjunctive claims by the designated parties, even though it has rendered a judgment on the claims for refund of each deposit for lease, and otherwise, did not render a judgment. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on subjective and preliminary co-litigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and such illegality constitutes an

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient to be judged directly by the members based on the facts established by the court below. As seen above, the plaintiff's claim for the loan is reasonable, and as long as the plaintiff's claim for the loan is accepted, each claim for the refund of the lease deposit by the designated parties with the subjective and preliminary consolidation relationship is justified, and therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the change in accordance with the Disposition 1.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)