Where only the plaintiff appealed against a judgment of retirement, the order of final appeal at the time that the request is deemed groundless;

Although the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed on the ground of res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit on the ground that it is unlawful cannot be sentenced to the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim more unfavorable than the plaintiff in light of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in the case of an appeal by only

Article 385 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4548, Jun. 2, 1988) (Law No. 1989, Jun. 28, 1988) (Law No. 3721, Jul. 13, 1993; Law No. 2267, Feb. 267)

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs Park Jae-nam, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na24621 delivered on December 15, 1993

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the facts established by the court below, in the case of the claim for compensation for damages for delay of claim of this case filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were sentenced to the judgment in favor of the defendant that the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay 49,165,084 won of the compensation for delay of claim of this case, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is. Thus, in the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the above damages for delay by asserting that the above damages for delay was fully paid on January 23, 1981, which was before the date of the conclusion of the fact-finding proceedings of the above final and conclusive judgment ( October 17, 1990), the above damages for delay shall not be recognized as the existence of the above damages for delay as at the time of the conclusion of the fact-finding proceedings by res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims of this case shall

However, the court below should dismiss the plaintiffs' claim of this case on the ground of res judicata of the above final judgment. However, the court below erred by misapprehending that the plaintiffs' claim of this case should be dismissed on the ground of its stated reasoning, but it cannot be sentenced to a more unfavorable dismissal judgment against the plaintiffs under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in the case which only the plaintiffs appealed. Thus, all of the appeals of this case should be dismissed.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)