Of the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant, 800,000 won and damages for delay against Plaintiff DK.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment ex officio on the appeal by the Plaintiff V, W, X, Y, Z, AAB, AD, AD, AF, AG, AH, FX, FY, FY, GG, GB, GC, GD, GE, GG, GH, GH, GH, GH, GH, GJ, GJ, GJ, GJ, and GK (hereinafter “PlaintiffV et al.”) must be determined by the first written order, so whether the judgment has been omitted, unless there is any special reason otherwise, even if the reasoning for the judgment states that the claim is groundless.

In a case where a judgment is omitted, the part of the lawsuit shall be deemed to be still pending in the original judgment, and thus, it shall not be the object of legitimate appeal, and the appeal on that part is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da24083 Decided August 30, 2004, etc.). According to the records and reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Plaintiff V and 25 filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of damages. At the first instance court, Plaintiff V, et al. filed an appeal against the Defendant, and Plaintiff V, et al. did not err by misapprehending the purport of the judgment as to the claim for damages, but the lower court did not err by misapprehending the purport of the judgment as to the claim for damages from March 29, 2013.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court omitted the judgment against Plaintiff V and 25, and accordingly, the lawsuit against the above Plaintiffs is still pending in the lower court.