1. The Defendants’ appeal against Plaintiff A and the Defendant C and E’s appeal against Plaintiff B shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. Plaintiff B.

1. Although the Defendants’ appeal by the Defendants against Plaintiff A and the appeal by Defendant C and E against Plaintiff B were lawful, the Defendants stated in the correction of January 30, 2018 that “a request for exclusion against Defendant E shall be filed,” the withdrawal of Defendant E’s appeal was not otherwise submitted.

The above appeal is examined ex officio as to the legitimacy of each appeal.

An appeal may only be lodged against a judgment rendered by himself/herself, and whether the judgment is disadvantageous to an appellant shall be determined as at the time of the filing of the appeal, based on the standard of the text of the judgment. Therefore, an appeal against the judgment that won the entire winning of the case is unlawful as

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da20235, Jul. 13, 2007). According to the records, the Plaintiffs sought from the Defendants the “Defendant a block with the size of 20 square meters above that of 1,141 square meters on the ground of 17, 18, 19, 20, and 17 square meters on the ship connected in sequence with each point of 20 square meters on the ship, the removal of a shop for the storage of string roof, and the delivery of the said part of the land.” In the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendants, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C and E, respectively, are recognized.

Therefore, the defendants' appeal filed against the plaintiff A, the defendant C, and E is unlawful because each of the above appeals filed against the plaintiff B has no interest in appeal.

(2) The grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. (3) The ground of appeal by the court of first instance are as follows. (4) The ground of appeal by the court of first instance is that there is a part against the plaintiff, since the building on the ground of this case is owned by the defendant C, not by the defendant D, and therefore, the defendant C should be the defendant. (4) The ground of appeal by the court of first instance is that the plaintiff A was the party who sold the land with knowledge of donation, and therefore, the judgment of the plaintiff B's claim is not accepted.