Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning the claim for ownership transfer registration and the claim for extradition against the defendant shall be revoked, and that part shall be prosecuted.

1. The scope of trial at the trial of the court of first instance has lost part of the purport of the claim in the trial of the court of first instance, and the defendant has appealed only for the part of the claim in the second instance after the whole losing part of the claim in the second instance. The subject of trial at the court of first instance is the part of the claim in the first instance judgment.

2. Whether the Defendant’s addition is lawful

A. The record reveals the following facts.

① On September 11, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment from the existing rent and future rent on the land that is the right holder of thisland.

② On April 8, 2013, the Plaintiff sought unjust enrichment against the Defendant, the title holder of the registration of the trust of a building on the ground above on the two occasions, and filed an application for sale under Article 7 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings and an application for modification of the purport of the claim with respect to a building indicated in the attached list in the name of the Defendant, one of the unregistered stores holding the right to a site on the ground, and filed an application for the alteration of the purport of the claim.

③ On April 25, 2013, the first instance court: (a) permitted the Defendant’s addition; (b) proceeded with pleadings; and (c) sentenced the first instance judgment on February 13, 2014.

B. Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that in a case where there is no indispensable co-litigants, the omitted parties may be added before the closing of pleadings in the first instance trial. According to Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act, where part of the co-litigants’ claims are legally incompatible with those of other co-litigants, or where claims against part of the co-litigants are legally incompatible with those of other co-litigants, Article 68 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Here, “legal compatibility” means a different legal evaluation of the same factual relationship, and the legal effect of one of the two claims is recognized.