1. A judgment shall state the reasons therefor (Article 208 (1) 4 of the Civil Procedure Act); the reasons therefor shall indicate on the allegations of the parties and the judgment on the method of offence and defense to the extent that the text thereof is recognizable as fair;

(2) Article 208(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the reasoning for a judgment shall be stated in the same manner. The purpose of the judgment is to verify the reasonableness and objectivity of fact-finding and the selection, application, and interpretation of laws and regulations conducted in the process of the trial in order to ensure that the process of determining the conclusion is unreasonable or subjective by applying laws and regulations to the specific facts acknowledged by the court based on evidence, so that the court seeks to verify the reasonableness and objectivity of fact-finding and the process of finding, application, and prosecution conducted in the process of the trial. The reasoning for the judgment is to state without fail the necessary decision in the process that leads to the conclusion so that such process can be clarified as rational and objective.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da36620, Sept. 12, 2013). Meanwhile, where a new claim is added to the appellate court for the first time, the appellate court should judge as the first instance court with respect to the additional claim. As such, the first instance court ruled that “the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed” while rejecting the existing claim, and the appellate court’s rejection of all the claims added to the existing claim and the appellate court’s additional claim in the appellate trial should simply indicate that “the appeal is dismissed.” In addition, the appellate court should indicate that “the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.”

According to the records on August 2, 2004 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da24083, Aug. 30, 2004). 2. The Plaintiff concluded against the Defendant each of the instant real estate between the co-defendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the first instance trial and the Defendant on November 22, 2013.