1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs ordering payment is revoked.

Defendant F,..

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs asserted, as the owner of a structure under the main sentence of Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, the liability to compensate Defendant F as the owner of a structure under the main sentence of Article 758(1) of the Civil Act, as the insurer under Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act with respect to the damage incurred by the fire of this case, and as the conjunctively asserted, Defendant E as the owner of a structure under the proviso of Article 758(1) of

The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants constitute preliminary co-litigation under Article 70 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where the claims against part of the co-litigants are legally incompatible with those against other co-litigants.

The court of first instance dismissed all the plaintiffs' claims against the primary defendant F and Matz fire and the conjunctive defendant E, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the primary defendant in the first instance judgment against the primary defendant.

Where 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 shall be subject to adjudication as it is transferred to the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17765, Mar. 27, 2008). In such a case, the subject of adjudication on an appeal shall be determined by considering the necessity of the final and conclusive conclusion between the main and preliminary co-litigants and their other parties.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da43355, Feb. 24, 2011). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff did not file an appeal against the conjunctive Defendant among the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff’s claim against the conjunctive Defendant E is transferred and included in the scope of the trial of this Court.

However, Defendant E constitutes a “party to the appellate trial” who did not appeal even though it did not appeal.

2. Basic facts

(a)the Parties;