1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiffs corresponding to the revoked part shall be the Defendants.

1. Determination of whether the form of this Court’s consolidation of the scope of adjudication is either selective consolidation or preliminary consolidation shall be based on the nature of the motion, not the intent of the parties, and the scope of adjudication in the appellate trial shall be based on such nature of the motion.

Therefore, in a case where both substantially selective consolidation claims are filed in the order of preliminary priority, and the court of first instance dismissed the main claim and rendered a judgment that accepted only the conjunctive claim, and only the defendant filed an appeal, the appellate court shall determine all the two claims as the subject of the trial.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da96868, May 29, 2014). In the instant case, the Plaintiffs are claiming against the Defendants the return of each lease deposit, which was primarily caused by the termination of the lease contract, and the Defendant is claiming for the payment of damages according to the employer’s responsibility (Article 756 of the Civil Act).

On this issue, the court of first instance dismissed all the plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendants, and accepted only a part of the conjunctive claims.

However, the above two claims may be accepted, regardless of whether or not they are acceptable to other claims, and regardless of their names, they are substantially compatible and selective consolidations.

However, it is only the primary preliminary relationship in the order of judgment by the plaintiff's will.

Therefore, even though the defendants appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the above two claims are subject to the judgment of this court.

Under the following, the above two claims shall be determined on the premise that they are the selective consolidation relationship.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, as a broker of K, are not more than each electric power generation as indicated in the table “same-si” column as below among Youngcheon-si and 23 above ground M apartment units on the ground.