2. The remaining Defendants except Defendant E and AI.

An appeal is seeking revocation or alteration of a disadvantageous judgment against himself/herself in favor of himself/herself.

An appeal against a judgment in favor of the whole person is not allowed because there is no subject or interest to file an appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da246180, Jun. 13, 2019). The first instance court accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant E and AI in accordance with the pertinent purport of the claim and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs in full. As such, the Plaintiffs do not have any interest to file an appeal against Defendant E and AI.

Therefore, the appeal against the plaintiffs against the defendant E and AI should be dismissed as illegal.

2. The reasons for the appellate court's judgment on this part of the appeal against the plaintiffs of defendant E, E, and AI other than the plaintiffs' remaining appeal and the reasons for the appellate court's judgment on this part are the same as the reasons for the judgment against the relevant defendants of the first instance judgment, and therefore, the relevant part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Once the judgment of the first instance is rendered, the following shall be added to 4:

"The building of this case was first sold from November 22, 1980, and on November 22, 1980, part of the building of this case was first sold from November 22, 198, and the person who purchased part of the building of this case for the first time from November 22, 1980 constitutes Gap's priority number 5

(A) At the time of the relocation of the registration of the building on the pertinent heading room, the co-ownership shares related to the pertinent section of exclusive ownership among the instant site was also transferred. Around that time, there was a somewhat different difference depending on the size of the heading room in which the shares transferred among the instant site was sold. However, as a matter of course, the shares constituted shares among 2/6 to 3 of 382.6.

AO around 1980, Article 5 of the sales contract (No. 1 certificate) at the time of sale of part of the building of this case has increased or decreased due to "public land".