A. In a case where there is a complaint for the reasons for the judgment, whether there is a benefit of appeal or not. The court's decision on the principle of pleading and the relationship of rights

A. The final appeal is intended to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself, and whether a judgment is disadvantageous to an appellant shall, in principle, be determined on the basis of the main text of the judgment. Therefore, if there is no complaint against the cited part of the claim under the main text of the judgment, even if there is a complaint against the reasoning of the judgment, there is no benefit in

B. In light of the principle of pleading, the court cannot determine the facts that the parties did not assert, but the court may render a judgment by a legitimate interpretation of the law on the substantive relationship alleged as the cause of the claim, as long as the objective substance of the claim appears to be the same.

A. Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act; Article 392 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act)

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu233 decided Apr. 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 820) 91Da40696 decided Mar. 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 1389) 92Da33008 decided Jun. 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2100) 91Da31494 decided Feb. 14, 1992 (Gong192, 1026)

Plaintiff

Defendant Law Firm Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Reu2124, 2131 decided May 17, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The appeal shall be considered lawful ex officio.

The final appeal is intended to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself, and, in principle, whether the judgment is disadvantageous to the appellant shall be determined on the basis of the text of the judgment. If there is no complaint as to the cited part of the claim under the text of the judgment, even if there is a complaint in the reasoning of the judgment, there is no benefit of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu233, Apr. 14, 1987; 91Da40696, Mar. 27, 1992; 92Da33008, Jun. 25, 1993).

However, according to the records, the court below partly accepted the defendant's counterclaim of this case on the ground that the plaintiff (the plaintiff) was jointly with the non-party, whose mother is the non-party, and the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant (the non-party plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant") was responsible for causing the failure of the agreement. The defendant did not have any complaint regarding the scope of the amount of the cited in the judgment below's order and was erroneous in the supplementary explanation that the plaintiff and the non-party are jointly and severally liable as joint tortfeasor. Thus, the defendant's appeal of this case is unlawful as it has no benefit of appeal.

In addition, under the principle of pleading, the court cannot determine the facts that the parties did not assert, but the court can render a judgment by legitimate interpretation of law on the substantive legal relationship alleged as the cause of the claim, as long as the objective substance of the claim is shown to be the same. Thus, even though the judgment of the court below is based on the reasoning of the judgment below, it cannot be said that there was an error contrary to the principle of pleading or the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in the part of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)