The scope of the case remanded to the court below shall not be subject to a disadvantageous judgment against the defendants beyond the limit that was the subject of an examination by the court of final appeal

In a case where the plaintiff filed an appeal against the plaintiff's failure to file an incidental appeal among the original judgment prior to remanding, only the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment prior to remanding without filing an appeal against the plaintiff's failure is reversed and the case was remanded to the original judgment, even though that part against the plaintiff was remanded to the original judgment, it does not reverse the original judgment against the part that dismissed the plaintiff's additional appeal, which is the part that did not file an appeal, that is, the plaintiff's failure to file an appeal. Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the original court remanded

Articles 385 and 395 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Cho Jin-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1551 delivered on October 4, 1968

1. The defendant's appeal concerning the claim for consolation money among the original judgment is dismissed.

The litigation costs of the part shall be borne by the defendant.

2. The portion of the original judgment against the remaining defendant shall be reversed; and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the appeal by Defendant 1, the part of the judgment below which ruled that there was an error in misunderstanding legal principles as to the final judgment among the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1, the defendant was dismissed from the complaint of 830,490 won, 515 won to the plaintiff 2, and the above amount of 1966. 7% of the annual 5% of the total amount of damages to the plaintiff 1, and the judgment of the court below which ruled that the plaintiff was remanded to the 1,67. 5th of the first instance court's judgment which ruled that the plaintiff was not remanded to the 3th of the first instance court's judgment, and that the plaintiff was not remanded to the 1,60th of the first instance court's judgment which ruled that the plaintiff was not remanded to the 3th of the first instance court's judgment, and that the plaintiff was not remanded to the 1,60th of the first instance court's judgment which ruled against the plaintiff 1, and that the remaining part of the appeal is remanded to the 2th court's judgment against the defendant.

In addition, the judgment of the court below prior to the reversal of the case, which cited only KRW 50,00 as to the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money, and the defendant did not appeal against this, and only the part against the plaintiffs was remanded to the court of final appeal due to the plaintiffs' appeal. As to the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money, the court below's judgment cannot be accepted less than KRW 50,000, which is accepted by the court below prior to the remand. Thus, even if the defendant's claim for consolation money has a reason for the defendant's defense, the court below's judgment cannot be accepted less than KRW 50,000, which is accepted by the court below, on the ground that the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money cannot be less than KRW 50,000, respectively, and it is reasonable

Therefore, the defendant's appeal as to consolation money in the original judgment against the defendants is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. The defendant's appeal as to the remaining part is with merit, and the part against the defendant is reversed and remanded to the original court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kimchi-bi (Presiding Judge)