[1] The criteria for determining the scope of property to be returned by several co-inheritors whose value of the donated property or testamentary gift exceeds their own own legal reserve of inheritance, and the method for determining the scope of each of the property to be returned in cases where one co-inheritors has received several properties as testamentary gift and returned the share to the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance with each of the property of inheritance

[2] Whether a court may accept a claim beyond a specific subject and scope in a lawsuit claiming the return of legal reserve of inheritance (negative)

[3] The time when the duty to return the original thing or the duty to return the value arising from the exercise of the right to return the secured portion occurs

[4] Whether the court may order the return of the value in case where the person liable for the return claims the return of the value of the secured portion and expresses his opposing intent to the return of the original property (negative in principle)

[5] In a case where one of the co-inheritors has repaid his/her statutory share of inheritance in excess of his/her share of inheritance, whether such circumstance should be considered when calculating the shortage of legal share of the person entitled to legal share of inheritance (negative)

[6] In a case where the donation, which infringed upon the legal reserve of inheritance, was retroactively invalidated by the exercise of the right to return the legal reserve of inheritance, the scope of the benefit of use of the property to be returned to the person liable for return

[1] When the value of the donated property or testamentary gift exceeds the amount of his/her own secured portion of property to be returned to the person entitled to the secured portion of property, in cases where several coinheritors set forth the scope of property to be returned to the person entitled to the secured portion of property, the total value of the property bequeathed exceeds the shortage of the person entitled to the secured portion of property, it would be possible to return each person's inherited property within the extent of the shortage in the person entitled to the secured portion of property, or it would not be returned gift property. In such cases, if several coinheritors return the shortage of the person entitled to the secured portion of property to each person's own movable property, the amount to be apportioned shall be divided according to the ratio of the value of the property donated or testamentary gift received to each person's own movable property, and even if there is a shortage in the value of the property which one coinheritors received, it is reasonable to return the shortage in property again to the person entitled to the secured portion of property in proportion to the above ratio. Furthermore, it is reasonable to return each person entitled to the secured portion of property by applying the Civil Act to one coinheritors.

[2] In a case where the person having the right to the legal reserve of inheritance exercises the right to claim the return of the legal reserve of inheritance against the person having the right to claim the return, and seeks the performance of the duty to transfer the property, the duty to deliver it, etc., the court must specify the subject and scope. The court may not accept the claim beyond the specific subject and scope

[3] The duty to return the original thing or the duty to return the value arising from the exercise of the right to claim the return of the secured portion is an obligation without a fixed deadline. Thus, the duty to return is liable for delay only when the duty to return is requested to discharge

[4] The Korean Civil Code recognizes the system of legal reserve and provides for the method of return of legal reserve, but does not have any separate provisions regarding the method of return of legal reserve. However, in light of the provisions of Article 1115(1) of the Civil Code, the person liable to return shall normally return the property which is the subject of donation or testamentary gift, or if it is impossible to return the original property, an amount equivalent to the value should be returned. Even if it is possible to return the original property, if there is an agreement between the person liable to return the legal reserve and the person liable to return the property, or if the person liable to return the legal reserve did not dispute the return of the original property, the court may order the return of the value, but if the person liable to return the legal reserve claims the return of the original property and expresses his/her intention to oppose the return of the original property, the person liable to return cannot order the return of the original property against the intention of the person liable to return.

[5] In a case where the content of performance, like a pecuniary obligation, is jointly inherited, it is reasonable to view that the performance was inherited to co-inheritors as a matter of course at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. As such, a monetary obligation equivalent to the statutory inheritance portion should be considered when calculating the shortage of the person having the right to the legal reserve of inheritance. However, in a case where one co-inheritors repaid the inheritance obligation equivalent to the legal reserve of the person having the right to the legal reserve of inheritance by exercising the right to demand a separate reimbursement against the person having the right to the legal reserve of inheritance, or by offsetting the person having the right to the legal reserve of inheritance by offsetting the shortage of the person having the right to the legal reserve of inheritance, such circumstance

[6] Where a person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance exercises his/her right to return a gift or testamentary gift against a person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance retroactively becomes void. Thus, the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance loses his/her right to use or benefit from the gift invalidated or testamentary gift to the extent of infringing upon the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance, and the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance's right to use or benefit from the subject matter is infringed upon by the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance retroactively at the time of commencement of inheritance. However, Article 201(1) of the Civil Act provides that "the possessor in good faith shall acquire possession of the subject matter." Since the possessor is presumed to have occupied in good faith pursuant to Article 197 of the Civil Act unless it is proved that he/she is a person liable to return the subject matter of legal reserve of inheritance, the person liable to return should have been attributed to the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance of the subject matter of inheritance of inheritance of the subject matter of bad faith." Article 197(2) of the Civil Act provides that "Where the person liable to return the subject matter of legal reserve of inheritance of inheritance of inheritance of bad faith, he/Do."

[1] Articles 115 and 1116 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 1115 of the Civil Act, Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 1115 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 1115 of the Civil Act / [5] Article 1115 of the Civil Act / [6] Articles 197, 201(1) and (2), 741, and 115 of the Civil Act

[4] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da51887 decided Jun. 23, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1228) / [5] Supreme Court Decision 97Da8809 decided Jun. 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2285)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Cheongjin, Attorneys Fixed-san et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Jeong Il-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na16058, 2010Na28569 decided April 30, 2010

The part of the lower judgment’s conjunctive claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All remaining appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Violation of legal principles as to the order and scope of return of legal reserve of inheritance

(1) When there are several co-inheritors who received a gift or testamentary gift in return for the return of the legal reserve of inheritance, the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance may claim for the return of the gift or testamentary gift in proportion to the value exceeding their own legal reserve of inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da11715, Jun. 30, 1995; 2006Da46346, Nov. 10, 2006). Meanwhile, according to Article 1116 of the Civil Act, where the gift or testamentary gift, which is the object of the claim for the return of legal reserve of inheritance, remains together, the person entitled to the legal reserve of inheritance, who received the gift, should first seek the return of the amount of the legal reserve of inheritance against the person who received the testamentary gift, and even thereafter, the person who received the gift may claim for the shortage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da647, Nov. 30, 2001).

Therefore, when the value of property donated or bequeathed exceeds his/her own legal reserve of inheritance and the scope thereof are determined, in cases where several co-inheritors determine the total value of the property bequeathed to persons with the right to legal reserve of inheritance, the total value of the property shall be returned to the persons with the right to legal reserve of inheritance, and in cases where the total value of the property bequeathed to several co-inheritors exceeds the shortage in the legal reserve of inheritance, it shall not be returned to each person's property within the extent of the shortage in the legal reserve of inheritance. In such cases, where several co-inheritors return the shortage in the legal reserve of inheritance to each person with the right to legal reserve of inheritance of inheritance to their own property, the amount to be apportioned shall be divided according to the ratio of the value of the property donated or bequeathed to each person with the right to legal reserve of inheritance of inheritance of one co-inheritors, and even if the shortage in the value of the property apportioned to one co-inheritors occurred, it shall not be returned to their own property as increase in inheritance, but the other co-inheritors may return the shortage in proportion to their share of inheritance of inheritance of one co-inheritors in proportion to the above ratio.

(2) In full view of the evidence of its employment, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”) died on September 20, 2005; (b) his heir Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”); (c) the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”); and (d) the deceased donated each property listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the judgment of the court below to the non-party 2, the Defendant, and the non-party 3 (hereinafter referred to as the “third party including the Defendant, etc.”) before his birth; and (d) on April 11, 1997, three persons including the Defendant, etc., who were given a testament of each property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of the judgment of the court below to the third party including the Defendant, etc.; and (e) on the other hand, the Plaintiff received a gift or not received a legacy from the deceased.

Furthermore, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff’s shortage in legal reserve of inheritance is KRW 3,416,704,422; KRW 1,779,00; KRW 4,778,318; the value of the Defendant’s property is KRW 4,329,237,747; the value of the Defendant’s property is KRW 10,212,189,03; KRW 2,195,423,050; the value of the Nonparty 3’s property is KRW 2,425,40; the value of the Plaintiff’s property owned by Nonparty 2; KRW 365; the value of the Plaintiff’s property owned by Nonparty 4; the value of the Defendant’s property owned by Nonparty 2; KRW 45; the value of the Defendant’s property owned by Nonparty 3; the aggregate of the value of the property owned by Nonparty 2; KRW 361,275,281; and the value of the Defendant’s property exceeding KRW 2636.

(3) However, in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to accept such determination by the court below. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, three persons including the defendant et al. were to return the above shortage of legal reserve to the plaintiff as their own property, and the total value of three persons' property such as the defendant et al. (1,071,609,000 + KRW 4,329,237,747 + KRW 2,195,423,00 + KRW 2,195,423,00). Since three persons including the defendant et al. were to return the above shortage of legal reserve of inheritance to the plaintiff as their own property, the amount of the share that the defendant et al. should return to the plaintiff as their own property, and the amount of the share that the defendant et al. would have to return to the defendant et al. as their own property to the plaintiff should not be returned to the plaintiff as their respective amount of legal reserve of inheritance within three persons including the defendant's 3416,7424.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the order, scope, and ratio of return of legal reserve of inheritance, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

B. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disposition right principle, the duty of explanation, etc.

Where a person having the right to the legal reserve of inheritance exercises a right to claim the return of the legal reserve of inheritance against the person who has the right to claim the return, and seeks the performance of the obligation to transfer the property, the obligation to deliver it, etc., the court shall specify the subject and scope, while the court may not accept the claim beyond the specific subject and scope in accordance

On a different premise, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the disposition authority principle and the duty to explain.

C. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting point of the delayed liability

(1) The duty to return the original thing or the duty to return the value arising from the exercise of the right to claim the return of the secured portion is an obligation without a fixed deadline. Thus, the duty to return is liable for delay only when the duty to return is discharged.

(2) The lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion that, on the ground that the Defendant’s obligation to return the value of the secured portion was an obligation with no fixed deadline for payment, the Defendant’s claim seeking damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from the date the inheritance commences is justifiable.

However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff should pay damages for delay to the value on the ground that the Plaintiff calculated the value to be returned as of the date of closing argument of the lower court on the ground that the Plaintiff calculated the value to be returned as of the date of closing argument of the lower court.

If the principal cited in the claim for return of value does not exceed the principal stated in the revised claim after examining when the delivery date of the copy of the above claim and the request for change of cause, the court below shall order the defendant to pay damages for delay at a rate of 5 percent per annum from the day after the day when the copy of the above claim is served to the day when it is reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the claim for return of value.

The lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the initial date of late liability for a debt without setting the period for performance, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit within the scope of recognition.

D. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of returning legal reserve of inheritance

(1) The Korean Civil Act recognizes the system of legal reserve and provides for the method of return of legal reserve, but does not have any separate provision regarding the method of return of legal reserve. However, in light of the provisions of Article 1115(1) of the same Act, where a person liable to return the legal reserve claims the return of the property within the extent of shortage, the person liable to return the property should normally return the property, or where it is impossible to return the original property, or where it is impossible to return the original property, the equivalent amount should be returned (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da51887, Jun. 23, 2005, etc.). Even if it is possible to return the original property, the court may order the return of the original property if there is an agreement between the person liable to return the legal reserve of legal reserve of inheritance and the person liable to return the property, or if the person liable to return the property did not dispute the return of the original property with the intention to return the original property and expressed his/her opposing intent to return the property.

(2) According to the records, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff only claims the return of the original claim against the property that can be returned to the original claim for the return of the original claim by the method of return of the secured portion. Thus, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's main claim on the ground that the plaintiff could not choose the return of the original claim for the property that can be returned to the original claim is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of return

E. Violation of the rules of evidence regarding donated property

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that each real estate listed in [Attachment 6 List 2 and 6] in [Attachment 6] of the judgment below should be excluded from the property, which is the basis for calculating legal reserve of inheritance, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that it is a property donated from the deceased to the defendant, and there is no violation of law of logic

F. Violation of the rules of evidence concerning the scope of the return of provisional payments

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since it is clear that the court below dismissed the defendant's request for the return of provisional payment to the plaintiff, the argument in the grounds of appeal disputing errors in the amount of provisional payment as stated by the court below is disputing matters which could not affect the conclusion, and it is not accepted without further review.

G. M&D misunderstanding of legal principles as to grounds for registration when returning the forced portion of inheritance

The exercise of the right to claim the return of legal reserve of inheritance can be done by means of a declaration of intention to the other party in court or outside court. In this case, if the declaration of intention is sufficient to designate the testamentary gift or gift whose legal reserve of inheritance was infringed and expressed the intention to claim the return thereof, it does not require specific specification of the subject matter, unlike exercising the right to claim the transfer of the subject matter arising therefrom or the right to claim the transfer of the subject matter (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da11715 delivered on June 30, 1995). Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, it is desirable to order the execution of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership based on the return of legal reserve of inheritance by designating testamentary gift or gift in violation of the legal reserve of inheritance of the plaintiff in this case and claiming the execution of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership based on the inheritance or gift against the defendant.

However, on the contrary, the lower court deemed the “ December 7, 2009.” on which the duplicate of the application for modification of the purport of the instant claim was served on December 2, 2009 as the grounds for registration, and alone cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment that became the grounds for reversal in the lower judgment. This part of the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. misunderstanding of legal principles as to the order and scope of return of legal reserve of inheritance

As seen earlier, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the order, scope, and ratio of return of legal reserve of inheritance and the judgment as to the property to be returned to the plaintiff by the defendant to the plaintiff, and the scope and ratio of the property to be returned to the plaintiff, which affected the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

B. Violation of the rules of evidence as to donated property, misapprehension of the legal principle as to the burden of proof, and calculation of value

(1) 원심판결 이유를 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이 그 채용 증거를 종합하여 그 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음 그 판시와 같은 사정을 들어, 원심판결 별지 1 목록 순번 제⑤, ⑩, ⑭항 기재 금융자산, 별지 1 목록 순번 제⑨항 기재 부동산 및 별지 4 목록 순번 제⑧항 기재 금융자산은 망인이 피고에게 증여한 재산이므로 유류분산정의 기초가 되는 재산에 포함되어야 한다는 취지로 판단한 것은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같이 논리와 경험의 법칙을 위반하고 자유심증주의의 한계를 벗어나거나 증명책임의 소재를 오해한 위법 등이 있다고 할 수 없다.

(2) 또한 원심판결 이유를 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이 원심판결 별지 1 목록 순번 제⑨항 기재 부동산의 상속개시 당시의 시가가 635,000,000원이라고 인정한 것은 수긍할 수 있고, 거기에 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같은 유류분 산정 시 증여재산의 가액 산정에 관한 법리오해 등의 위법이 없다.

C. Violation of legal principles as to obligations to be reflected in calculating shortage in legal reserve of inheritance

(1) In a case where the content of performance, like a pecuniary obligation, is jointly inherited, it is reasonable to view that the performance was naturally inherited to co-inheritors at the time of commencing the inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da8809 delivered on June 24, 1997). Therefore, the amount of monetary liability equivalent to the statutory inheritance portion should be considered in calculating the shortage in the legal reserve of the person holding the right to the legal reserve of inheritance. However, in a case where one co-inheritors repaid the amount of the legal reserve of inheritance to the person holding the right to the legal reserve of inheritance in excess of the amount of his/her legal reserve of inheritance share, the amount of monetary liability should be considered in calculating the shortage in the legal reserve of inheritance portion of the person holding the right to the legal reserve of inheritance, apart from where one co-inheritors separately exercised the right to the legal reserve of inheritance

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to inheritance obligations to be reflected in calculating shortage of legal reserve as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by

(2) In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the amount of legal reserve of inheritance of the plaintiff and the defendant, who are co-inheritors of the deceased, is identical to KRW 3,251,680,582, respectively, and that the shortage of legal reserve of inheritance of the plaintiff is KRW 3,416,704,422 (amount of legal reserve of inheritance of KRW 3,251,680,582 - Special benefit amount of KRW 00 + 165,023,840).

Unlike this, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the court below found the legal reserve amount different from that of the plaintiff and the defendant that the legal reserve amount should be identical.

D. Violation of the legal principle as to the amount of special benefits to be deducted when calculating shortage in legal reserve of inheritance

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below was just in holding that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the non-party 3 in this case seeking the return of legal reserve of inheritance and received KRW 485 million from the non-party 3 in relation to the non-party 3's claim for return of legal reserve of inheritance. The plaintiff received the above amount from the non-party 3 in relation to the claim for return of legal reserve of inheritance against the non-party 3, and it cannot be deemed that it was a donation or testamentary gift. Thus, the court below did not deduct the above amount when calculating the shortage of legal reserve of inheritance of the plaintiff, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the amount of special interest to be deducted when calculating the shortage of legal reserve of inheritance as otherwise alleged in the ground

E. M. M. misunderstanding of legal principles as to the right to recover the fruits and the duty to return unjust enrichment

(1) Where a person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance exercises his/her right to return a gift or testamentary gift against a person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance retroactively becomes void. As such, the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance loses his/her right to use or benefit from the gift or testamentary gift to the extent that it infringes upon the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance, and the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance’s right to use or benefit from the subject matter is infringed upon by the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance retroactively at the time of commencement of inheritance. However, Article 201(1) of the Civil Act provides that “the possessor of the good will acquire the fruits of possession.” Since the possessor is presumed to have occupied the subject matter in good faith pursuant to Article 197 of the Civil Act unless it is proved that he/she is a person liable to return the subject matter, the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance shall have the right to receive the subject matter of inheritance, and thus, he/she shall not have any obligation to return from the person entitled to legal reserve of inheritance of inheritance of the subject matter of inheritance of inheritance of inheritance of bad faith.” Article 197(2).

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant used and made profits from the real estate listed in No. 11 of the annexed table 6 list of the judgment below, and the profits from such use and profits therefrom up to 7.7 million won per month. The court below determined that the defendant is liable to return the above real estate as unjust enrichment, inasmuch as the defendant used and made profits from legacy from the deceased as he used and made profits from the legacy from the deceased, he did not make any judgment as to the defendant's assertion that he did not have an obligation to return the real estate in unjust enrichment since he had no obligation to return the real estate at the latest, since he had no obligation to return the real estate in return for unjust enrichment, as the above real estate was bequeathed to the defendant from the deceased's death to December 2, 2009.

However, it is sufficient to view the Defendant’s above assertion as a bona fide possessor at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. In such a case, if the Defendant did not assert or prove that he was a bad faith possessor, even though the effect of the above testamentary gift was invalidated within the scope of infringing the Plaintiff’s forced inheritance right, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment for the Defendant’s portion out of the profits from the use of the above real estate to be returned to the Plaintiff as a forced inheritance portion.

Therefore, the court below should examine and determine whether the defendant's unjust enrichment can be deemed as unjust enrichment among the profits used in the above real estate, and when it is recognized, whether the defendant can be deemed as unjust enrichment, and whether unjust enrichment can be deemed as unjust enrichment from the time when it is recognized, on the ground that the testamentary gift becomes invalid within the extent that it infringes upon the plaintiff's legal reserve of inheritance.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to receive the fruits from the possessor in good faith and the duty to return the used profit to the person who has returned the secured portion, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

(3) Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the profits from using the above real estate on the ground that the real estate listed in Nos. 2 and 6 of the [Attachment 6] of the judgment below does not fall

Unlike this, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the court below erred in finding that the defendant has a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for each of the above immovables, and erred by the judgment below.

F. Meritorious of legal principles as to the establishment of tort

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just that the court below rejected the defendant's tort damages claim on the ground that the plaintiff did not consent to the cancellation of provisional seizure made by the deceased and caused the plaintiff to deposit the liquidation money claim amounting to KRW 591,956,347 of the deceased who was bequeathed (the claim in attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court below) or there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff committed any illegal act preventing the plaintiff from receiving the liquidation money claim, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of tort as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant

G. Grounds of appeal as to the non-appeal claim

According to the records, the defendant stated in the petition of appeal that "The scope of appeal related to the defendant's counterclaim claim among the judgment of the second instance shall be limited to the claim amounting to KRW 54,492,419, which the defendant suffered as the plaintiff interfered with the payment of KRW 591,956,347, which was bequeathed by the deceased non-party 1."

Therefore, among the grounds of appeal related to the defendant's counterclaim claim, "the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the waiver of the claim for reimbursement that was taken over from the non-party 3" and "the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the obligation to jointly pay inheritance tax and the legal interest on the amount of reimbursement" were submitted as to the portion not dissatisfied with the appeal, and therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the conjunctive claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and all remaining appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)