1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Subjective and preliminary co-litigation within the scope of adjudication by this court shall be the form of litigation in which all co-litigants settle the dispute between themselves in the same legal relationship in a lump sum without inconsistency with one litigation procedure, and judgment shall be rendered on the claims against all co-litigants.

(Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 70(2) of the same Act, if an appeal against one of the co-litigants is filed in a subjective or preliminary co-litigation, the final and conclusive part of the claim against other co-litigants shall be prevented, and it shall be subject to adjudication in the appellate trial, and in such a case, the subject of adjudication on appeal shall be determined in consideration of the need for a final and conclusive conclusion between the primary and preliminary co-

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da75202 Decided March 20, 2015, etc.). In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of invalidity of the part concerning the instant land among the instant public notice of approval with respect to the Defendant Jeonju market, and as to the Defendant Jeonju city, the Plaintiff sought an increase in compensation for expropriation of the land owned by the Plaintiff, including part of the instant land, on the premise that the part concerning the instant land is valid in the public notice of approval. Such form of lawsuit constitutes an conjunctive co-litigation under Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where the claim against part of the co-litigants is legally incompatible with that against other co-litigants.

The first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim and accepted the conjunctive claim, and the plaintiff appealed only against the primary claim.

In light of the above legal principles, the part of the conjunctive defendant Jeonju City was also interrupted by the plaintiff's appeal, and thus, it became subject to the judgment of this court. However, the conjunctive defendant Jeonju City did not appeal but did not appeal.