1. All appeals by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) at the appellate court.

1. We examine whether the appeal of this case is lawful ex officio.

The facts that the plaintiff won the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim in the court of the first instance are significant in this court. The judgment of the court of the first instance on the facts or the claim for deduction stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance cannot be viewed as having res judicata, and thus the plaintiff's separate appeal cannot be allowed. There are no special circumstances to recognize the plaintiff's benefit of appeal.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.

(1) The court of first instance decided on the grounds of a set-off in which res judicata takes place, and it seems that there is a benefit in appeal since res judicata has not been imposed on the automatic claim of the set-off defense. However, in this case where the Defendants paid advance payment as requested by the Defendants in accordance with the relevant provisions as requested by the Defendants, it cannot be deemed that there was a defense of set-off premised on the existence of automatic claim and passive claim in the instant case. Meanwhile, as long as the Plaintiff’s appeal of this case is unlawful, the Plaintiff’s claim added in the appellate court should be invalidated as a matter of course.). 2. Upon the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s appeal of this case is unlawful, and thus, it