All appeals by the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the part of the claim expanded by the original judgment are dismissed.

The judgment below

On September 1, 2014

1. We examine the legitimacy of the final appeal as to the part of the claim extended at the lower court’s ex officio as to the damages and damages for delay (from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017).

A. In a case where a claim is expanded in the appellate trial, the appellate court should judge the extended claim as the first instance court in substance. As such, the first instance court rendered a judgment citing part of the existing claim, and where the appellate court rejected all the plaintiff's appeal against the extended claim and the part against the plaintiff in the first instance, the appellate court should not simply indicate the order that "the appeal is dismissed," and at the same time, indicate the order that "the plaintiff's claim is dismissed."

On the other hand, in order to clarify the judgment of the court, whether there is any omission of judgment as the conclusion is stated in the text shall be determined by the entry of the text. Therefore, even if the reasoning of judgment states that the claim is groundless, it shall be deemed that there is an omission of judgment, unless there is any special reason not to do so.

If a judgment is omitted, the part of the lawsuit is still deemed to be pending in the original trial, and thus, it does not constitute an appeal, and the appeal on such part is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da28256 Decided August 23, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da222666 Decided July 6, 2009, etc.) B.

In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below explained to the effect that it seems to have taken into account the claims expanded by the court below, but stated in the text “All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed,” and did not indicate any text as to the claims expanded by the court below.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below omitted the judgment on the claim expanded by the court below, and this part of the claim is still pending in the court below and thus is not the object of appeal.