1.The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

between the defendant and C.

1. The defendant's decision on the legitimacy of the plaintiff's appeal asserts that the plaintiff's appeal is unlawful, since there is no benefit to appeal the whole winning plaintiff in the first instance.

On the other hand, in a case where a lawsuit seeking performance of a claim against a divisible claim is filed and it is not clearly stated that the remaining part is reserved and only a part is claimed, 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 lose the opportunity to demand the remainder. Therefore, in such a case, the benefit of appeal for expanding the claim against the whole part of the judgment shall be determined by virtue of exceptional circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da12276, Oct. 24, 197). The plaintiff's claim against the defendant seeking the revocation of fraudulent act and compensation as restitution, is a lawsuit for demanding performance against the divisible claim, and since the plaintiff stated that it is a part of the claim in the first instance court, the plaintiff's appeal for expanding the claim for compensation amount is without merit. Accordingly, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

2. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with the Seoul Central District Court 2009Da304386, which sought payment of the price of goods, etc., and on May 25, 2010, the said court rendered a judgment that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,383,00 and the amount at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 28, 2009 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment was finalized on June 24, 2010.

B. C On July 18, 2012, between the Defendant’s husband F and F, the Defendant’s husband, is below the real estate indicated in the separate sheet.