In a case where the plaintiff extended or changed the purport of the claim in the appellate court that only the defendant appealed, whether the appellate court violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration if the plaintiff accepted the plaintiff's claim in excess of the cited amount in the judgment of the first instance

In a case where the plaintiff filed an appeal only by the defendant extended or modified the purport of the claim, it shall be deemed that the incidental appeal was filed to the extent unfavorable to the defendant. Therefore, even if the appellate court accepted the plaintiff's claim in excess of the cited amount of the judgment of the first instance, it does not violate the principle of

Articles 385 and 372 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Defendant Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 90Na4915 delivered on May 24, 1991

The part of the lower judgment against Plaintiff 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed, and all costs of appeal against this part are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff 1’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

In a case where the plaintiff filed an appeal only by the defendant extended or modified the purport of the claim, the incidental appeal shall be deemed to have been filed to the extent unfavorable to the defendant. Therefore, even if the appellate court accepted the plaintiff's claim in excess of the cited amount of the judgment of the first instance, it does not violate the principle

According to the records, with respect to Plaintiff 1’s claim for 45,257,284 won as claimed in the first instance court’s claim and damages for delay thereof, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff ordering the payment of KRW 20,501,758 and damages for delay thereof, and the said Plaintiff did not appeal only the Defendant. However, while the appellate court continued to appeal, it is obvious that the said Plaintiff had extended KRW 45,257,284 to KRW 58,813,625 on March 28, 191 on the ground that it is apparent that the claim amount was changed to KRW 58,813,625 on the ground of the application for extension of claim and the written correction of cause

However, on its reasoning, the judgment of the court below recognized that the above plaintiff is liable to pay the above plaintiff 36,702,278 won and damages for delay thereof, and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which concluded a different conclusion, is unfair, but only the defendant appealeds, the case where only the defendant appealeds, cannot be modified disadvantageously to the defendant. However, as stated above, it is deemed to be the purport of the incidental appeal that the above plaintiff extended or changed the purport of the claim in the appellate court. As such, the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of incidental appeal following

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the defendant's attorney.

Recognizing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below recognized the fact that the accident occurred due to the negligence in the course of performing duties of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, the defendant, who is the defendant's use of the press presses of this case, and held that the above defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above plaintiff's injury as the user of the above non-party, and held that it is reasonable to deem that the above plaintiff 1 was negligent in performing duties without confirming whether the whole plaintiff was the victim, and that the rate of negligence is 30%.

In light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are acceptable, and there is no violation of law by excluding selection of evidence and determination of evidence or excluding determination of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the arguments, and the court below did not disclose the work location of workers such as theory and the work operation relationship of machinery, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law of incomplete deliberation as to the existence of negligence and the degree of negligence. Thus, all arguments are groundless.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Plaintiff 1 is reversed and remanded, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)