1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant Wang-si (Appointed Party) 2,331,759, and 2,359.

1. Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The scope of a trial of this Court is not compatible with the law” means a relationship in which the legal effect of one of the two claims is acknowledged, depending on different evaluations of the same factual relations, and where both claims are not acceptable because the legal effect of one of the two claims is denied, or where either of the two claims is affirmed or denied by facts or by a selective fact-finding that constitutes the cause of the claim, and thus, the other party’s legal effect is denied or affirmed by denying or opposing the other party’s legal effect. This means a relationship in which the two claims affect the other claim’s reasons for determining the other claim, and where the process of determining each claim is inevitably combined, as well as where the substantive law is incompatible with each other, as well as where the legal effect of one of the two claims is not compatible with each other under the Civil Procedure Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2007Ma515, Jun. 26, 2007). If one of the main co-litigants or the conjunctive co-litigants files an appeal in a subjective and preliminary co-litigation, the part of the claim against other co-litigants shall be prevented, and the claim shall be transferred to the appellate court for adjudication (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17765, Mar. 27, 2008). In such a case, the subject of adjudication on an appeal shall be determined by considering the necessity of the unity of the conclusion between the main and preliminary co-litigants and their other parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2009Da70766, Sept. 29, 201). The foregoing legal doctrine equally applies to selective co-litigants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200

In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) asserted that the Plaintiff occupied and used the drainage route of this case, and sought a return of unjust enrichment selectively.

The first instance court.