보증채무금
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Defendant B’s partnership’s KRW 307,294,891 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.
1. The court of first instance determined only one of the selective claims by the plaintiff and dismissed, and the remaining claims are dismissed, and any decision is unlawful. The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, so long as the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance, all of the selective claims by the plaintiff was transferred to the appellate court. Thus, the part of the selective claims, which was not determined among the selective claims, shall not be deemed as having been pending in the court of first instance,
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da99 delivered on July 24, 1998, etc.). In addition, where only one of the parties to a judgment of the first instance that dismissed part of a single claim has lodged an appeal, only one of the parties to the judgment of the first instance, the entire claim that was the object of adjudication of the judgment of the first instance is indivisible, but the scope of adjudication of the appellate court is limited to the scope of appeal filed by the appellant among the parts in the appellate trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da67321, Apr. 11, 2003). Regarding this case, the health unit of the first instance court, the Plaintiff either claimed the same benefit based on the deposit claim under the defect liability contract, the nonperformance of obligation, and each of the above claims constitutes selective consolidation of claims seeking a variety of claims under the condition that a certain claim be accepted, with the condition that the claim be accepted.
However, the court of the first instance judged only the claim for security deposit based on the warranty contract, and rejected part of the claim for security deposit against the defendant B, and omitted the judgment on the claim for damages due to the remainder of the non-performance, and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.
Since the plaintiff appealeds against this, not only the claim for deposit based on the warranty contract, but also the claim for damages due to default.