1. The appeal against the principal claim and the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be dismissed respectively;

2. The appeal costs.

1. In filing an appeal as to whether an appeal against the principal lawsuit is lawful, the purport of an appeal against the judgment of the first instance shall be clarified (Article 397(2)2 of the Civil Procedure Act). The Defendant only sought revocation of the principal lawsuit among the judgment of the first instance, but did not state the purport of a specific appeal, and the court of the first instance ordered on September 9, 201, the date for the second pleading, October 14, 201, and September 21, 201 to clarify the purport of the appeal at the date for the third pleading, October 14, 2011, and on September 21, 2012, the Defendant did not comply therewith. Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal against the principal lawsuit is unlawful.

2. An appeal as to whether an appeal against a counterclaim is lawful is sought for revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself. Therefore, an appeal against the judgment of the court below in the whole winning the counterclaim is not permissible as there is no benefit of filing an appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da51649, Dec. 24, 2008; 99Da61378, Jun. 14, 2002). The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking payment of KRW 5,00,000 as part of the insurance money under an insurance contract as stipulated in attached Form 2 with regard to an accident as stipulated in attached Form 1, and the court of the first instance accepting the Defendant’s claim for the above counterclaim is obvious in the record that the defendant’s appeal against the counterclaim part is unlawful as there is no benefit of filing an appeal.

As long as the defendant has clearly stated in the first instance that he/she would claim the payment of KRW 5,00,00 as part of the above insurance proceeds and damages for delay thereof, an appeal to expand the claim for a counterclaim may not be allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da51649, Dec. 24, 2008; 99Da10424, Feb. 11, 2000).