1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's claim added at the trial.

1. An appeal filed by the plaintiffs ex officio as to the legitimacy of the appeal, and an appeal may be filed against the appellant only against the judgment unfavorable to him/her. Whether the judgment is disadvantageous to the appellant should be determined at the time of filing the appeal on the basis of the text of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Da515, Oct. 25, 1983). As such, an appeal against the judgment of winning the entire winning case is unlawful

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da20235 Decided July 13, 2007). The court of first instance accepted both the Plaintiffs’ claim for the performance of transfer procedures, and the Plaintiffs won all of them, which eventually is unlawful as the Plaintiffs’ appeal has no benefit of appeal.

[Plaintiffs filed an appeal to expand their claims in the petition of appeal, and added the same claim as stated in the purport of the claim at the trial, but the transfer procedure and the claim for payment of money cannot be seen as having a relation to a partial claim, and thus there is no benefit to appeal against the judgment of the first instance court which won the entire judgment in order to add the claim for payment of money (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da12276, Oct. 24, 1997). 2. The reason why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the claim for the request for the performance of the transfer of shares is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, they accept it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

3. In order to ensure the effective enforcement of the judgment ordering the obligor’s obligation to act of action on the claim for monetary payment, even if the enforcement title is established in view of the time of the closing of argument in the judgment procedure, it is apparent that the obligor is not likely to arbitrarily perform his/her obligation, and the obligor has been given an opportunity to sufficiently present the validity of the decision of indirect compulsory performance in the said judgment procedure, and the reasonable amount of compensation ordered under Article 261