1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The defendants are the defendants.

1. Whether an appeal of this case is lawful is seeking a change in favor of one’s own judgment, and thus, the appeal of this case is not permitted against the judgment of the entire winning case. However, in a case where a lawsuit seeking the performance of a claim for a divisible claim is filed and it is not clearly stated that the remaining part is reserved and only a part is claimed, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment shall extend to the remaining part, and thus, the remaining part shall not be re-claimed by a separate lawsuit. Thus, if an appeal is not allowed to expand the remaining part of the claim, the obligee who won the whole winning

Therefore, in this case, the interest of appeal in order to extend the claim against the remaining part of the judgment that won the whole winning case is reasonable exceptionally.

(2) The plaintiff's claim for damages and damages for delay calculated on July 28, 2003 to August 25, 2004, which the plaintiff held against the defendants is entitled to pay 5% interest per annum from July 28, 2003 to August 25, 2004, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da1276, Oct. 24, 1997).