A. Where an appeal is filed only against a part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which has dismissed several claims, whether the appellate court may re-cite the remainder which has not been appealed

B. The case reversing the part of the judgment of the court below and declaring the termination of the lawsuit on the ground that the court below erred in examining and determining the part on which the plaintiff did not appeal

A. In a case where the plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, where several claims are dismissed only for a part of them, the remaining parts which did not have been appealed, shall be prevented from becoming final and conclusive by the appeal, and the appeal court shall proceed to the appellate trial, and as long as the plaintiff does not expand the purport of appeal by the time the arguments have been concluded, the remaining parts shall not be subject to the judgment of the appellate trial because the plaintiff did not object to the judgment of the appellate court. Thus, the appellate

B. The case reversing the part of the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed both the claim for cancellation of the registration of transfer and the claim for money, and thus, the purport of the appeal was not expanded until the closing of argument, and thus, the scope of the judgment of the court of appeal is limited to the claim for cancellation and the lawsuit was concluded at the same time as the judgment of the court below before remanding the remaining parts, but it is erroneous for the court below to reverse the part of the judgment below's claim for money and declare that the lawsuit on that part was terminated directly by the Supreme Court under Article 407

(a)Article 385(b) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da14892 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 246) 94Da32979 delivered on October 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2966). Supreme Court Decision 82Nu89 delivered on June 22, 1982 (Gong1982, 709) 90Nu5153 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong191, 2541)

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

Defendant Kim Sung-nam, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 92Da19880 Delivered on June 8, 1993

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na29343 delivered on July 20, 1994

1. The part of the judgment below against the defendant regarding the payment of money shall be reversed.

The lawsuit on the above part was completed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. On the second ground for appeal

After the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, it is proper to determine that the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the forest of this case was made for the purpose of securing the obligation, not by payment in kind, and there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation like the theory of lawsuit or by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence.

2. On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the 4,5 forest land in this case (hereinafter “the claim for cancellation”) and the payment of 130,000,000 won and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “the claim for amount”), the first instance court dismissed all of them, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal only with respect to the part on the claim for cancellation, and the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal, the lower court, prior to the remand, reversed the judgment of the lower court prior to the remand, and it is evident that the Plaintiff’s appeal was reversed by accepting the Plaintiff’s appeal, and the lower court determined not only the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation, but also the part on

However, in the case where the plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed all of several claims, the remaining parts which did not have been appealed shall be prevented by the appeal from becoming final and conclusive, and they shall be transferred to the appellate court, but as long as the plaintiff did not expand the purport of appeal until the time the argument is concluded, the appellate court cannot re-cite the part which was not appealed among several claims of the plaintiff. Thus, in the case of this case where the plaintiff appealed only about the part of the claim for cancellation and the claim for money, and the purport of the appeal is not expanded until the time the argument is concluded, the appellate court's judgment on the claim for cancellation and the claim for money in this case shall be limited to the part of the claim for cancellation, and the scope of the appellate court's judgment on the remaining parts shall be decided at the same time as the judgment of the court below before the remand is remanded, and it shall be deemed that it is erroneous for the court below to review and

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for money is reversed, and it is declared that the lawsuit on this part has been terminated directly by a member pursuant to Article 407 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)