The case holding that an incidental appeal is filed on the content of the application for amendment of the purport of the claim and the legal brief, even if the purport of the incidental appeal is not specified;

The case holding that an incidental appeal shall be filed on the basis of the content of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the legal brief, even if the purport of the incidental appeal is not specified.

Articles 374 and 367 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and 5 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and 1 other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Head of a District of Name;

Chuncheon District Court Decision 91Na2674 delivered on October 2, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined (the supplemental appellate brief is submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief, and it is judged to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below did not make a decision on the ground that the primary claim part was transferred to the court below but the plaintiff did not appeal against it and did not become the object of the judgment of the court below, and judged only the primary claim which the defendant lost in the court of first instance and brought an appeal against it.

However, according to the records, when the deceased non-party, who is the plaintiff in the first instance, filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale of the real estate in the first instance against the defendant at the court of first instance, filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of prescriptive prescription, and dismissed the main claim, and the judgment of the first instance which accepted the conjunctive claim, the defendant only filed an appeal and the lawsuit is pending in the court of first instance, while the lawsuit is pending in the court of first instance, the plaintiffs who received the lawsuit due to the death of the deceased at the fifteenth day of September 17, 192 stated in the application for amendment of the purport of claim as to the primary claim lost in the first instance due to the plaintiff's share of inheritance due to the death of the above deceased, and the judgment of the first instance on the same day stated together with the above application for amendment of the purport of claim, dismissed the primary claim on the grounds that there is no evidence to recognize that the above deceased purchased the real estate

Therefore, even if the purport of filing an incidental appeal against the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs in the above application for amendment of the purport of the claim and the briefs submitted by the plaintiffs is not clearly stated, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs filed an incidental appeal against the main claim lost by the court of first instance as its whole. Therefore, the court below should first determine the propriety of the main claim, and even if it is possible to determine the conjunctive claim without any justifiable reason, the court below should make such determination without any name, and the decision of the court below as above is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the incidental appeal or due to the incomplete hearing due to the lack of the right to explanation,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded without examining the remaining grounds of appeal in order to determine the main claim and the conjunctive claim combined with an indivisible lawsuit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)