1. The defendant's incidental appeal against the plaintiff B is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A's appeal is dismissed.

3. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following “the determination on the legitimacy of an incidental appeal” to the incidental appeal, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The incidental appeal regarding the legitimacy of the incidental appeal is a system in which, even after the right of appeal by the appellee has ceased to exist and thus it is impossible to file an independent appeal, the principal appeal is to be duly pending even after the right of appeal by the appellee has ceased to exist, and its original judgment is to be modified in favor of the appellee himself/herself.

Plaintiff

In the petition of appeal submitted by B, the defendant is stated as the appellee, and the purport of appeal is as follows: "The defendant is jointly and severally with the defendant, 5,00,000, 37,917,000 won out of the above amount, and 15% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment." However, there is no statement in the purport of appeal seeking cancellation as to the defendant against the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant. The above purport of appeal does not include the extension of the claim as it is identical to the purport of the claim against the defendant of the plaintiff B, whose claim is wholly accepted by the first instance court (the same applies to this case). The grounds of appeal by the above petition of appeal are as follows. The plaintiff Eul and the co-defendant D shall be jointly and severally with the defendant of the first instance court against the defendant and the damages for delay shall be paid.

In full view of all the circumstances known by the record, including the fact that Plaintiff B’s appeal against Co-Defendant D was withdrawn on March 26, 2019, Plaintiff B should be deemed to have lodged an appeal only against Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial.

Therefore, the defendant's incidental appeal against the plaintiff B is unlawful as it has been filed without the main appeal.

3. Thus, the plaintiff A's claim against the defendant is justified.