beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The calculation table of damages in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced by the calculation table of damages in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance.
The fourth to fourth parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be conducted in the following manner:
“4) Calculation: [Attachment] The actual income column in the damages calculation sheet is KRW 134,363,167, such as the entry in the damages calculation sheet.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiffs' claims on the lost income were fully accepted, the plaintiffs' appeal on this part is unlawful because it violated the disposition right principle.
However, since an appeal is intended to seek a revocation or alteration in favor of himself/herself in relation to a judgment unfavorable to him/her, the appeal is not allowed in principle, but in principle, the denial of the profit from appeal by the party who won the whole lawsuit cannot be considered as absolute in relation to a single subject matter of lawsuit. However, in a case where the plaintiff won the whole part of the damages (negative), but the plaintiff partly lost the consolation money, in which the plaintiff filed an appeal in the form of objection against the part against the plaintiff's loss, and the whole part of the case is prevented from confirmation and continued in the appellate court, the damages or consolation money for property damage due to the tort are based on a single cause, but it is nothing more than that classified as a separate subject matter of lawsuit for convenience, so it is reasonable to grasp this in fact to allow the expansion of the claim as well as consolation money in the appellate
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da3063 delivered on June 28, 1994, etc.). Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
(b).