The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. The text of the judgment must be clear and its contents should be specified in the text itself. Therefore, the order must be clearly specified to the extent that it is so small that it can be written and its execution is not doubtful as to which extent the party’s claims are accepted and rejected.

Whether the text of the judgment is specified is the matter of ex officio investigation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu251, Mar. 8, 1983; 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006). Meanwhile, in a civil lawsuit, the purport of the claim should be specified in detail so that the content and scope of the claim can be clearly identified, and whether it is specified is also an ex officio examination.

Therefore, where the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall order the correction ex officio, regardless of whether the defendant raises an objection, and shall dismiss the lawsuit if the defendant does not comply with it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da53785 Decided November 12, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94625 Decided February 10, 201, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court understood that “the Defendant shall accept the Plaintiff’s audit until the completion of the liquidation work” as stated in paragraph (1) of the Plaintiff’s claim, and that “the Defendant shall accept the Plaintiff’s supervision (the date of completion of the liquidation work or the date of loss of the Plaintiff’s audit status)” in the text of the first instance judgment is justifiable, and thus, dismissed the Defendant’s appeal.

However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the part seeking the acceptance of audit among the Plaintiff’s claims does not specify the timing, object, and method of audit.

In addition, the order of the first instance judgment also does not specify the subject and method of the audit, and there is no objective clear standard about the implementation method of the audit and inspection, and only orders for omission, such as prohibition of interference with the Plaintiff’s performance of duties.