1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

1. We examine whether the appeal filed by the defendant ex officio on the legitimacy of the appeal filed by the defendant.

An appeal may only be filed against a judgment rendered disadvantageous to himself/herself, and an appeal filed against a judgment rendered in full winning the lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit therefrom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da20235, Jul. 13, 2007). An appeal against a judgment rendered in full winning the lawsuit is permitted only where all or part of an appeal against the judgment rendered in the lawsuit is well-grounded, and it is not allowed in cases where an appeal filed in the merits is without good cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da2185, Jul. 7, 1981; 98Da42141, Nov. 10, 198). In light of the foregoing legal principles, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was dismissed in the health care unit and the first instance court. As long as the Defendant won the lawsuit in full in the first instance trial, the Defendant’

2. The plaintiff's grounds for appeal that the objection against the defendant's application for the payment order against the plaintiff's appeal is improper and the payment order in this case becomes final and conclusive as it is, and that the plaintiff was not paid part of the damages for delay against the 5,000,000 won out of the lease deposit, and 550,000 won, which was deducted from the lease deposit, was not paid by the plaintiff since the settlement was completed and the deduction was not paid by the plaintiff, and the deduction was unfair, are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if each evidence submitted to the first instance court was presented, the fact finding and judgment in the first instance is legitimate.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s 3rd judgment “B” in the fourth 3rd judgment is “H”; and (b) the fourth 16th judgment “explicied” in the fourth 16th judgment is different from the reasoning of the first instance judgment; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is correct.