1. Of the lower judgment, the part on Defendant CX, CY, and CZ and the part against the Plaintiff against Defendant D, H.

1. We examine ex officio the part of the lower judgment regarding Defendant CX, CY, and CZ.

Even if an obligee has several damage claims against the same obligor, so long as the damage claims are separate claims that differ from the time when the damage claims accrue and the cause thereof, they constitute separate subject-matter of lawsuit. Since the date of commencement of extinctive prescription and the defense by which the obligor may assert may differ, the obligee who claims in a lawsuit must specify the amount of the claim by each damage claim, and the court should specify the amount to be granted by each damage claim. This legal doctrine also applies where the obligee claims only a part of the multiple damage claims.

In addition, in civil procedure, the purport of the claim should be specifically identified so that its contents and scope can be clearly identified, and the issue of whether the claim is specified is a matter to be examined ex officio, and where the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall order ex officio correction regardless of the defendant's objection, and shall dismiss the lawsuit if it does not comply with it

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da53785 Decided November 12, 2009, etc.). B.

The record reveals that the Plaintiff claimed KRW 7.1 billion out of the damages amount of multiple damage claims exceeding the total amount of KRW 20.7 billion against Defendant CX, CY, and CZ, according to each of the aforementioned Defendants’ respective shares of inheritance.

For the same reason, the lower court should have ordered the Plaintiff to correct the amount of each damage claim to specify the claim amount by each damage claim, and accordingly specify the amount of award by each damage claim, and have dismissed the lawsuit in the event the Plaintiff does not comply with the order of correction.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not take such measures and comprehensively did not specify the amount of award for each damage claim against the said Defendants.