1. Defendant D’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by Defendant D.

purport, purport, and.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff primarily delegated the management of the H building owned by G (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and sought payment of KRW 25 million out of the deposit money against the Defendant Association that concluded a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant Association that had concluded a mutual aid agreement to guarantee liability for damages caused by the act of brokerage between Defendant B, C, and the Licensed Real Estate Agent, on the ground that Defendant B, and C, who purchased and sold or leased the instant lease agreement on behalf of G on the ground that they did not have the right of representation due to the death of G, even though there was no right of representation, Defendant B and C had concealed it and acquired the right of representation as if they had no right of representation. Such form of lawsuit is compatible with the legal claim against any other co-litigants and is therefore incompatible with Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The court of the first instance dismissed the claim against the primary defendant B, C, and Association, and declared a judgment accepting the claim against the primary defendant D, and only the primary defendant D has filed an appeal against the lost part. In the preliminary co-litigation, if one of the primary co-litigants or the conjunctive co-litigants files an appeal against any one of them, the part of the claim against the other co-litigants is transferred to the appellate court and is subject to the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da4355, Feb. 24, 2011; 2006Du17765, Mar. 27, 2008); and the part of the claim against the primary defendant B, C, and Association are also subject to the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17765, Mar. 27, 2008).