A. Whether the dismissal of the final appeal has become final and conclusive in the part of the judgment below prior to remand, where the remaining final appeals are dismissed after reversal and remanding the part ordering payment as a debt of periodical

B. Whether an appellate court may withdraw an appeal without relation to the filing of an incidental appeal even after remanding the case

C. The case where a declaration of termination of a lawsuit was made on the grounds of paragraph (a) or (b)

A. If the judgment of remand only reversed and remanded the part of the judgment of the court below that ordered the payment as the obligation of periodical payments and dismissed the remainder of the appeal, the part that ordered the payment of lump-sum payment from the judgment of the court below before remanding the claim, i.e., the part that ordered the payment of lump-sum payment (the part that ordered the payment of lump-sum payment, king medical expenses, and consolation money) shall be confirmed by the judgment of remanding the above judgment, and only the part that ordered the payment as the obligation of periodical payments (the part that ordered the afterma

B. An appeal may be withdrawn prior to the final judgment of the appellate court (Article 363(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and once the final judgment of the appellate court has been rendered, where the final judgment has been reversed in the final appeal and the case has been remanded to the appellate court again, the first final judgment shall lose its effect and return to the same state as the final judgment did not have existed. Thus, the appellant may withdraw the appeal without relation to whether the respondent has filed an incidental appeal until a new final judgment has been rendered. Accordingly, even if the appellant loses his/her interest in the incidental appeal, he/she shall lose his/her interest as beneficial to the other party’s appeal, and thus, it shall not be inevitable as it ceases to exist due to the withdrawal of the principal appeal. Therefore, even if the incidental appeal has already been filed, the withdrawal of the principal appeal shall be null and void.

C. The case where a declaration of termination of a lawsuit was made on the grounds of paragraph (a) and paragraph (b)

(a)Articles 404, 406, and 363 of the Civil Procedure Act;

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Park Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daejeon High Court Decision 94Na1003 delivered on September 15, 1994

Supreme Court Decision 93Da51874 delivered on January 25, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

In the claim of this case, the lawsuit concerning the claim for the early medical expenses and the early medical care expenses was terminated by the judgment of the party members 93Da51874 delivered on January 25, 1994, and the lawsuit concerning the claim for the early medical care expenses and the future medical care expenses was terminated by the defendant's withdrawal of the appeal on March 5, 1993 against the Cheongju District Court Decision 92Da2995 delivered on July 4, 1994.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The record reveals that the instant lawsuit was in progress as follows.

(A) On March 5, 1993, the Cheongju District Court rendered a decision that the plaintiff's damages claim for medical expenses, nursing expenses, and consolation money by the city bus belonging to the defendant company shall be granted KRW 16,713,151, 57,134,057, and 3,000,000 (excluding all of the parts of nursing expenses), and the defendant's damages claim shall be dismissed as follows: "The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 76,847,208 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from the day after October 12, 191 to March 5, 1993; the amount of KRW 25% per annum from the day after the date of completion to the date of full payment; and the plaintiff's remaining claims shall be dismissed."

(B) As to the above judgment of the first instance, the plaintiff filed an incidental appeal after the lapse of the appeal period, and also filed a claim. The Daejeon High Court, which is the first instance court, rejected the claim of 41,568,04 won, 8,692,257 won, 5,000 won, and 1,767,846 won per annum from the following day to 9.20 won per annum, 92% per annum from the next day to 9.20 won per annum, 99 won per annum per annum for the remaining amount from 9.20 won per annum for the first instance court, 9,000 won per annum for the second five years, 9,000 won per annum for the second five years, 9,000 won per annum for the second five years, 9,000 won per annum for the second five years, 9,000 won per annum for the second five years, 9,000 won per annum for the second five years.

(C) The Plaintiff appealed only to the lower judgment prior to the remand, and the party members dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s final appeal on January 25, 1994, in the case of the Plaintiff’s final appeal No. 93Da51874, the part of the lower judgment ordering payment as the obligation of installment payments (including the part ordering the future payment) in the judgment prior to the remand, which partially received the Plaintiff’s final appeal.

(D) On July 4, 1994, where this case was pending at the court below after the remand, the defendant's attorney presented a written withdrawal of appeal, but after the remand, the court below denied its validity on the ground that it is unfair to determine the judgment of the court of first instance more favorable than the judgment of the court of first instance which was remanded before the appeal was lodged at will by the defendant if the withdrawal of appeal is recognized by the defendant. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim amounting to 41,568,04 won at will, 9,59,59,259, 259, 34,169 won, 34,14,000 won, 11,59,100 won from the day following the date of the remand of the judgment of first instance after the remand (the above judgment of first instance was concluded to have become final and conclusive, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim amounting to 16,568,040 won per annum, 159,2199.

2. It shall be considered ex officio.

As above, if the judgment of remand only reversed and remanded the part of the judgment of the court below that ordered the payment of the lump-sum payment and dismissed the remaining appeal, the part that ordered the payment of the lump-sum payment from the judgment of the court below before remanding the claim of this case, i.e., the part that ordered the payment of the lump-sum payment from the judgment of the court below (the part that ordered the lump-sum payment from the judgment of the court below), and only the part that ordered the payment of the lump-sum payment (the part that ordered the payment of the lump-sum payment and the claim for the expenses for future care) was remanded. Thus, the judgment of the court below after remanding the part that ordered the payment of the lump-sum payment as the above regular payment, is limited to the part that ordered the payment of the above lump-sum payment, and the other part cannot be the object of the judgment. However, even if the judgment of the court below after remanding the above part of the claim of the lump-sum payment became final and conclusive, the judgment of the court below as to the above part that did not err by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the scope of the judgment.

3. Next, we examine the first ground for appeal.

An appeal may be withdrawn before a final judgment has been rendered at the appellate court (Article 363(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). On the other hand, even after a final judgment at the appellate court has been rendered, in cases where the final judgment has been reversed and the case has been remanded to the appellate court, the first final judgment shall lose its effect and return to the same state as the case did not have such final judgment. Thus, the appellant may withdraw the appeal without relation to whether the respondent has filed an incidental appeal until a new final judgment has been rendered. Accordingly, even if the appellant loses his/her interest in the incidental appeal, he/she shall be deemed as mutually beneficial to the appeal of the original other party, and thus, it shall not be inevitable as it ceases to exist due to the withdrawal of the principal appeal. Accordingly, even if a new final judgment has already been filed, the withdrawal of the principal appeal shall be

Therefore, as seen earlier, if the defendant's legal representative submitted the letter of withdrawal of appeal on July 4, 1994, which had been remanded to the court below, the part ordering the repayment of installment funds (the cost of after-sales treatment and the part claiming future nursing expenses) by the above judgment of remand, even if the plaintiff, who is the appellant, has already filed an incidental appeal and extended his claim, the withdrawal of appeal shall be effective, and the above part ordering the remainder of the claim to be paid as the above settlement fund obligations which remains unpaid shall be determined as the first instance court's decision. Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the above withdrawal of appeal and its determination on the above part shall be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the withdrawal of appeal, and this part of the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed from the next day to the 3rd day, and it is clear that the lawsuit has been completed as above, with 9% interest rate of 19% per annums and 15% per annums and 29% per annums and 19.19% per annums and 1919.2.

4. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)