[1] Where an appeal is filed only against a part of the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed all the claims, whether the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance which did not appeal can be re-citing in

[2] Where a part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety, was appealed, and the purport of appeal has not been expanded until the closing of argument in the appellate trial, the case declaring that the lawsuit has been terminated, which became final and conclusive simultaneously with the judgment of the appellate

[1] Where a plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed all claims, the remaining parts of the judgment of first instance which did not have been appealed are prevented by the appeal, and they are transferred to the appellate court, but as long as the plaintiff does not expand the purport of appeal by the time of the closing of argument, the remaining parts are not subject to the judgment of the appellate court because the plaintiff did not object to the judgment of the appellate court. Thus, the appellate court cannot re-cite the part of the plaintiff

[2] Where a part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety, was appealed, and the purport of appeal has not been expanded until the closing of argument in the appellate trial, the case declaring that the lawsuit has been terminated, which became final and conclusive simultaneously with the judgment of the appellate court

[1] Article 385 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 385 and 407 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da4644 delivered on December 23, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 645) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da14892 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 246) Supreme Court Decision 94Da32979 delivered on October 11, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2966) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 82Nu89 delivered on June 222, 1982 (Gong1982, 709) / [191Gong153 delivered on September 10, 1991]

Copi Information and Communications Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Bag, Attorneys Gyeong-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samtech Co., Ltd. (Attorney Hwang Sang-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na42454 delivered on April 29, 1999

From May 20 to August 26, 1998, the part of the judgment of the court below ordering payment in excess of the amount equivalent to six percent per annum from May 20, 1997 to August 26, 1998, and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The lawsuit concerning the above part was terminated upon the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below on April 29, 199. The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1 purchased the above non-party 2's purchase and sale of the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1'.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal on this issue

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the plaintiff claimed the amount of the bill of this case against the defendant as the purport of the claim from May 20, 1997 to the delivery date of the copy of the bill of this case from May 20, 1997 to the delivery date of the copy of the bill of this case, and damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum from the next day to the date of the completion of the bill of this case, but the court of first instance dismissed the whole claim, and upon receiving the appeal from the court of first instance, the court of first instance revoked the first instance judgment as the purport of the appeal. The defendant stated to the plaintiff that the bill of this case and the amount of the bill of this case from May 20, 1997 to the delivery date of the copy of the petition of this case from the next day to the date of the completion of the bill of this case, and that there was no extension of the purport of the appeal from the next day to the date of the closing date of the argument of the court below to the date of 2.5% per annum.

However, in a case where a plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed all of the claims, the remaining parts which did not have been appealed shall be prevented from becoming final and conclusive due to the appeal, and they shall be transferred to the appellate court, but as long as the plaintiff does not expand the purport of the appeal until the closing of argument, the remaining parts shall not be subject to the judgment of the appellate court since the plaintiff did not object to the judgment of the appellate court. Thus, the appellate court cannot re-cite the part which was not appealed among the plaintiff's claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da32979, Oct. 11, 1994; 94Da44644, Dec. 23, 1994)

Although the legal principles were so doing, the court below judged that the plaintiff did not file an appeal, and the damages for delay of the part which did not expand the purport of appeal until the closing of argument in the appellate court, and cited it. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of adjudication in the appellate court or by violating the principle of disposition. The ground of appeal

Furthermore, in this case, where the plaintiff appealed only a part of the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's entire claim, and the purport of appeal has not been expanded until the closing of argument in the appellate trial, the remaining part which the plaintiff did not appeal is confirmed at the same time as the judgment of the appellate court is rendered (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da44644 delivered on December 23, 1994).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, from May 20, 197 to August 26, 1998, the part of the judgment below concerning damages for delay which exceeds the purport of appeal, i.e., six percent per annum from May 20, 1997 to the date of delivery of a copy of the petition of appeal of this case, and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, is reversed, and the part which is ordered to pay in excess of the amount with an annual interest rate of twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. It is sufficient to see that the party member as provided in Article 407 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Act is self-reader, and therefore, the lawsuit as to the above part is terminated by the sentence of the judgment below as of April 29, 199.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)