1. The remaining defendants except the plaintiffs' appeal except the plaintiff AD and defendant D of the plaintiff AD.

1. Ex officio determination on the remaining Defendants except for Plaintiff AD’s appeal and Defendant D of Plaintiff AD’s appeal

A. As a matter of principle, an appeal is filed against a judgment rendered in favor of one’s own in favor of revocation. Therefore, in a case where a lawsuit seeking performance of a claim for the payment of a divisible claim is filed and it does not clearly state that the remainder is reserved and only a part is claimed, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment shall extend to the remainder, and thus, the remaining part cannot be re-claimed by a separate lawsuit. In such a case, the benefit of appeal is recognized to extend the remainder of the judgment rendered in favor of one’s own in favor of one’s own (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da12276, Oct. 24, 1997). However, in a case of a partial claim stating that the remaining part is reserved and claimed, the obligee who won the entire lawsuit may re-claim the remainder by a separate lawsuit, barring special circumstances, and thus, the benefit of appeal is not recognized

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da37904, 37911, June 15, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2008Da51649, Dec. 24, 2008, etc.) B.

The following facts are acknowledged according to the judgment of the court of first instance and the records.

1) The Plaintiffs sought compensation for damages caused by the Defendants’ tort in accordance with the instant application for modification of claim and cause of claim. The Plaintiffs asserted that “as indicated in the “The first instance judgment amount (30%) column” in the attached Table 2 stating that the claim is part of the claim, i.e., Defendant E, F, G, and H, taking into account the burden of recognition, the Plaintiffs’ negligence, etc.