1. The administrator D of the rehabilitation debtor C Co., Ltd., the plaintiff's lawsuit taking over the defendant C Co., Ltd. among the judgment of the first instance.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The court of first instance decided only one of the selective claims of the plaintiff and dismissed the remainder, and did not make any decision on the remaining claims. Since the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, so long as the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the whole selective claims of the plaintiff were transferred to the appellate court, it cannot be deemed that the part of the selective claims, which was not determined, is a omission of the judgment, and it

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da99 delivered on July 24, 1998). B.

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s damage claim in lieu of the Plaintiff’s defect repair against Defendant C and the damage claim in lieu of the defect repair against Defendant C (hereinafter “B”) were all rehabilitation claims and sought the confirmation of rehabilitation claims. The first instance court dismissed part of the lawsuit for the confirmation of the damage claim against Defendant C, which the Plaintiff exercised in subrogation of B, and accepted the remainder of the lawsuit for the confirmation of the damage claim against the Defendant C, and omitted the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation of the damage claim against the Defendant C, which is selective relation.

The defendant C appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part of the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of rehabilitation claim against the defendant C along with the part of claim for confirmation of rehabilitation claim by subrogation of the plaintiff's right to claim for confirmation of rehabilitation claim against the defendant C shall also be included in the subject of

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance was that the plaintiff and B did not appeal all of the judgment of the court of first instance that stated that "4B" in Part 7, 7, 9, and 1,389, 209, 336 won and damages for delay in lieu of defect repair shall be paid to the plaintiff as damages in lieu of defect repair, and the part of the judgment was finalized

‘other than adding'.