A. Since there is no logical relationship, filing a claim for consolidation of several claims to purely simple mergers is not allowed because it is inappropriate to either selective or preliminary claims.

Where a plaintiff files a lawsuit in the same form, in order for the first instance court to deliberate and determine on the merits of the lawsuit, measures should be taken, such as exercising the right to command the lawsuit appropriately and making it revised as a simple joint request.

Without taking such measures, the court rendered a judgment on the merits and rendered a judgment on the merits only for one of them, and accepted them, and omitted all of the hearings and judgments on the remaining claims.

Even if so, the form of the consolidation of claims cannot be changed to a legitimate selective or preliminary consolidation relationship.

Where only the defendant appealed against such a judgment, only the claim cited by the court of first instance after a trial and determination may be transferred to the appellate court, and any other claim that has not been tried and determined remains in the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da51495, Dec. 11, 2008). (b)

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s two claims constitute pure simple consolidation. Nevertheless, the first instance court did not exercise the right to direction the lawsuit and did not take measures such as correction of the claim for simple consolidation, and rendered a judgment on the merits, and it did not hear and determine only the primary claim part, i.e., the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and omitted the examination and judgment on the conjunctive claim as asserted by the Plaintiff.

Since only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, only the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that the court of first instance accepted after deliberation and judgment is transferred to this court and is subject to adjudication.

2. The reasons why this Court has found the recognition are written or written in this part are as follows: