Whether the appellate court can extend the claim for the portion of property damage after appeal by the plaintiff who has won a full favor of the property damage and has partially lost the consolation money.

Since an appeal is intended to seek a revocation or alteration in favor of himself/herself in relation to a judgment unfavorable to him/her, the appeal is not allowed in principle, but in principle, the denial of benefits from appeal by the party who won the whole lawsuit cannot be considered to be absolute in respect of a single subject matter of lawsuit. However, in case where the plaintiff has won the whole part of damages (negative damages), but the plaintiff has lost part of consolation money in the form of a lawsuit against the plaintiff, and where the whole case has been prevented by filing an appeal in the form of objection against the part against the plaintiff's loss and the whole case has been continued in the appellate court, the damages or consolation money for property damage due to tort are based on a single cause, but it is nothing more than that classified as a separate subject matter of lawsuit for convenience, so it is reasonable to grasp this in fact to allow the expansion of the claim as well as

Articles 235, 372, and 378 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da982 delivered on July 22, 1980 (Gong1980, 13080) 91Da21688 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2611) 91Da43015 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 413)

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na19872 delivered on November 12, 1993

The part of the lower judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The remaining appeals by the plaintiff are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In this case, it is the opinion of the party members that the claim for damages and consolation money are not identical to the claim for damages arising from the infringement of the life and body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu27901, Jun. 22, 1990). Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the subject matter of lawsuit in the judgment below based on the premise

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff sought compensation of KRW 44,238,80,000 and KRW 5,000,00 as property damage for the reason that he suffered an injury due to the operation of the truck owned by the defendant in the first instance court, including KRW 39,238,80,000 and KRW 5,000,000, but has won the whole portion of the property damage and has been ruled against the part of the loss. The plaintiff only filed an appeal and extended his claim for additional payment of KRW 39,963,294 for property loss (negative loss). Since the plaintiff's claim in the first instance court did not specify the purport that the part seeking compensation for damages for the defendant's tort and the part claiming compensation for damages for the remainder, the plaintiff did not have any profit of property damage to the part seeking compensation for the whole property loss and did not have any profit of the plaintiff's appeal for the extension of the claim.

2. An appeal is to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself, so in principle, an appeal is not allowed against the judgment in full winning the appeal. However, in such a case, in a case where the other party's appeal has been prevented by filing an appeal, the law permits the other party to file an incidental appeal in order to expand the purport of the appeal or to expand the purport of the claim at the appellate court so that the other party can claim the remainder of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da21688, Sept. 24, 191; Supreme Court Decision 91Da43015, Dec. 8, 192; 91Da43015, Dec. 8, 1992).

3. Furthermore, according to the records and records, in this case, the plaintiff's claim for property damage (negative), it seems that the first instance court erred in calculating the aggregate disability rate in the double disability or in calculating the time of recovery from the temporary disability, and omitted part of the lost profit. As to the plaintiff's property damage (negative), as in this case, although the plaintiff won part of the compensation for damages (negative), it was ruled against the plaintiff in the form of a part against the plaintiff's loss. In this case, in a case where the plaintiff filed an appeal in the form of objection against the part against the plaintiff's loss, the whole decision of the case is prevented and the whole of the lawsuit is continued in the appellate court, the property damage or consolation money due to tort is based on a single cause, which is classified as a separate object for convenience, and it is reasonable to grasp this in fact to allow the expansion of the claim as well as the consolation money in the appellate court, and it does not infringe the defendant's legal stability or substantive rights, and it is not reasonable to deny the plaintiff's remaining part of the appeal claim as to the plaintiff's claim.

Of the judgment below, the part concerning consolation money shall not be asserted as the ground of appeal by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which dismissed the plaintiff's claim is reversed and remanded, and the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)