1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. In a case where the first instance court, within the scope of the trial of this court, dismissed the main claim and declared a judgment citing only the conjunctive claim and only the defendant appealed, the effect of the first instance court's appeal is naturally limited to the whole of the case, and the part concerning the main claim is also transferred to the appellate court. However, the scope of the appellate court's trial is limited to the legitimacy of the judgment of the first instance which accepted the conjunctive claim by the defendant. Thus, unless there is any incidental appeal by the plaintiff, the main claim cannot be subject

In this case, the first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's main claim and accepted only the conjunctive claim, and the defendant appealed only. Thus, the scope of the court's trial is limited to the plaintiff's main claim.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2 asserts that "the defendant shall not be deemed to have reached an agreement on intermediate omission registration on the premise that "the defendant shall not be deemed to have sold the real estate of this case to the non-party I and the non-party II," and that "the defendant shall not be deemed to have reached an agreement on intermediate omission registration on the premise that "the defendant shall not be deemed to have reached an agreement on the middle omission registration on the premise that "the defendant shall sell the real estate of this case to the non-party I and the two persons,"

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, although it is recognized that the defendant entered into a contract with the non-party I on May 9, 1991 to sell the real estate of this case on the other hand, according to Gap evidence No. 5-2 through No. 5, it is recognized that the registration of establishment of a collateral security holder I and the debtor was completed on October 24, 1991, and that the registration of establishment of a collateral security holder I and the debtor was cancelled on February 20, 192, when the registration of establishment of a collateral security holder as the plaintiff was completed on February 20, 1992. Thus, the defendant objection I and two persons.