The judgment below

Among them, the plaintiffs against the damages claim due to the nonperformance of each of the books of this case.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Since the subject of the trial is specified and limited by the Plaintiff’s intent in the civil procedure, the court shall determine the matters requested by the parties only within the scope of the application.

(Civil Procedure Act; Supreme Court Decision 2011Da61646 Decided May 9, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 2011Da23323 Decided July 14, 201, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da23323, May 9, 201).

The record reveals the following facts.

In the first instance court of this case, the Plaintiffs asserted each damages caused by the Defendant’s failure to make an agreement on land increase substitution or due to a change in public law, and the first instance court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiffs who rejected all of the aforementioned selective claims, and appealed accordingly.

The Plaintiffs stated in the lower court that they suffered damages due to nonperformance of the obligation under the instant text through the preparatory documents dated October 18, 2017, but in the above preparatory documents, the Plaintiffs stated that the two claims, namely, the failure to perform an agreement on increased land substitution and each claim for damages due to changes in the public law, are simply combined with each other, and did not clearly indicate the cause of the claim, and there was no fact that the lower court filed an application for changes in the cause of the claim, including adding the cause of the claim.

Therefore, the subject of the judgment by the court below is deemed to be the existence of each liability for damages due to the failure of the defendant's land substitution agreement and due to the change of public law, so the court below should have deliberated only on the claim for damages based on

C. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the claim for damages due to the non-performance of the obligations in the respective books of this case, which included the above part which the plaintiffs did not claim as the cause of the claim in this case in the subject of the adjudication. In so determining, the court below erred by violating the disposition authority principle under Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. Ground of appeal.