(a) Claims between multiple parties under the Civil Act;

B. Whether a written agreement to withdraw an application for compulsory auction has the obligation to withdraw the application for compulsory auction to the party to the agreement along with the applicant for auction (negative)

A. The claim relationship between multiple parties under the Civil Act is, in principle, an indivisible claim relationship, and is an indivisible claim relationship only when it is particularly indivisible by nature of the claim or by agreement between the parties.

B. Barring special circumstances, the withdrawal of a compulsory auction may only be filed with a requester for auction, so a person who has a written agreement to withdraw a request for compulsory auction along with the withdrawal of the other party’s lawsuit may not be deemed to have the obligation to withdraw the request for auction.

A. Articles 408 and 409 of the Civil Act; Article 411 of the Civil Act; Article 610 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na45973 delivered on October 16, 1990

The part of the judgment below against Defendant 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against Defendant 1.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff had the above 20,000 won and borrowed a notarial deed with the above 60,00,000 won as stated in its holding on August 26, 198. The defendant 1 filed a lawsuit of objection against the defendants on April 8, 1987 with the Suwon District Court for the purpose of deducting the above 97, 200 won and the remaining 97,00 won and 97,00 won of the 97,00 won of the 97,00 won of the 97,00 won of the 197,000 won of the 97,000 won of the 97,00 won of the 97,000 won of the 196,00 won of the 197,00 won of the 196,000 won of the 196,00 won of the 197,000 won of the 97,05,06,000.

In comparison with the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable with respect to the corresponding part of defendant 1, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the arguments are without merit with respect to the corresponding part

(2) The claim relationship between multiple parties under the Civil Act is, in principle, an indivisible claim relationship only when it is an indivisible claim relationship in light of the nature of the claim or when it is particularly indivisible pursuant to an agreement between the parties. However, even after examining the records in detail, it cannot be deemed that the loan claim relationship between the Defendants and the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as an indivisible claim in light of its nature, and even if it is possible for Defendant 1 to recognize that Defendant 2’s right to receive the claim on behalf of Defendant 2 was an indivisible claim relationship.

The judgment of the court below which recognized this as an indivisible claim relationship is justified because it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to an indivisible claim relationship without any evidence, and thus, it is reasonable to point this out.

(3) According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, since the compulsory auction of this case was applied for by Defendant 1, the obligation to withdraw it is limited to Defendant 1, barring any special circumstance, and even if Defendant 2 becomes a party to the above evidence No. 9, he appears to have participated in the performance agreement to cancel the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in his name and the conclusion relation by the agreement of the lawsuit filed against the plaintiff against the plaintiff, and he is not in a position to withdraw the compulsory auction of this case. Thus, the court below held that the defendants are liable to compensate for damages on the premise that the above obligation to withdraw the compulsory auction of this case is an indivisible obligation of the defendants. Thus, the court below determined that the defendants are liable to withdraw the compulsory auction of this case without any evidence, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to an indivisible obligation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the argument on this

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's appraisal statement that found the market price of the auction real estate of this case cannot be found to have errors identical to the above appraisal method theory (the above appraisal statement cannot be found in the form of 1.5 times in the name of individual factors, such as the theory of lawsuit). Thus, the court below's decision that recognized the market price of the auction real estate of this case as a result of the appraisal of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error like the theory of lawsuit, and since the court below's compensation for damages on the ground of default by the agreement of December 18, 1987. At this time, since the judgment of the court below was already rendered a decision of permission of auction, it is not possible to take this into account even if there was a negligence such as the theory of lawsuit that did not prevent the plaintiff, it is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or misunderstanding the legal principles of offsetting negligence.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below, and the appeal by Defendant 1 shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the dismissed party shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)