1. Of the plaintiffs' appeals, the attached sheet No. 1 No. 1 of the No. 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the amount of award shall be the amount on March 30, 201.

1. Whether the appeal of this case is lawful

A. Since an appeal concerning the benefit of an appeal against a judgment in favor of the entire winning case seeks revocation or alteration of the judgment unfavorable to himself/herself, in principle, an appeal against the judgment in favor of the appellant is not permitted, and in principle, whether the judgment is disadvantageous to the appellant or not shall be determined on the basis of the text of the judgment.

In the case of an explicit claim, the party who received the judgment in favor of the whole party may separately claim the remainder of the claim which has not been claimed in the lawsuit in question. Therefore, in the case of an appeal to expand the purport of the claim, the benefit of

However, in a case where a lawsuit seeking performance of a claim is filed against a divisible claim and it does not clearly state that the remaining part is reserved and claimed, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment extends to the remaining part, and thus, it cannot be re-claimed by a separate lawsuit as to the remaining part. Thus, if an appeal is not allowed to expand the remaining part of the claim, the obligee who won the whole part of the claim shall be disadvantaged by losing the opportunity to seek the remainder. Accordingly, in such a case, it is reasonable to acknowledge the benefit of appeal to extend the remaining part of the judgment

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da12276 delivered on October 24, 1997, etc.). B.

The result of the judgment of the court of first instance and the purport of the plaintiffs' appeal (1) are as follows: (a) the plaintiffs are from the date following the delivery date of a copy of the application for the change of the claim and the cause of the claim as of November 9, 2016 concerning each of the above money (the amount premised on the cost of installing basic living facilities per 418,731 square meter of the share in the co-owned land) and each of the above money as stated in the attached Table No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 as a claim for return of unjust enrichment in the court of first instance. (1)