1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against Defendant KS Telecom Co., Ltd. is revoked, and the aforementioned revocation part is revoked.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Since there is no basis to interpret the “claim against Part of Co-litigants” under the main text of Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act as “All Claim against Part of Co-litigants,” it is possible to file a lawsuit by combining it with the purport that accepting a claim against the primary defendant, which is not legally compatible with the primary claim against the primary defendant, in a case where the primary and preliminary claim against the primary defendant is not accepted.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da47677, Mar. 26, 2009). In addition, a subjective and preliminary co-litigation is a form of litigation in which all co-litigants settle the dispute between themselves in the same legal relationship in a lump sum without contradiction, and a judgment is rendered on the claim against all co-litigants (Article 70(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). Moreover, it is not permissible to render an additional judgment on the claim against some co-litigants or on the remaining co-litigants.

In addition, if one of the main co-litigants or the conjunctive co-litigants files an appeal in a subjective and preliminary co-litigation, the final and conclusive part of the claims against other co-litigants shall be prevented, and the appeal court shall be subject to adjudication (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da43355, Feb. 24, 201).

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s primary claim in the principal lawsuit of this case is to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation under the loan contract of this case on the premise that the loan contract of this case stated in the purport of each claim (hereinafter “the loan contract of this case”) was concluded with respect to Defendant Hyundai Capital, NonSP Capital, Samsung Card, and Samsung Bio-resources (hereinafter “Defendant financial institution”), and that it is effective against the Plaintiff on the premise that it is invalid.