1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant (appointed parties) and the appointed parties U, L, V, W, M, X,O,Y, and Z.

1. In the first instance court, in order to preserve the claim against the Defendants and Co-Defendant A of the first instance court, the Plaintiffs sought return of unjust enrichment by subrogation based on the creditor’s subrogation right, and sought confirmation of existence of unjust enrichment by subrogation of case trust in order to preserve the claim against the Defendants and Co-Defendant A of the first instance court (hereinafter “ call trust”), and sought confirmation of existence of the buyer’s abandonment in the first instance court. The first instance court received in full the Plaintiffs’ claim for return of unjust enrichment against Co-Defendant A of the first instance court. The Plaintiffs’ claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants was dismissed in all, and did not decide on the part of the claim for confirmation of existence of unjust enrichment by subrogation based on the creditor’s subrogation right of the Plaintiffs, while the buyer and Co-Defendant A of the first instance court dismissed all the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the buyer’s abandonment, only the Plaintiffs appealed appealed against the Defendants’ claim in the first instance judgment.

However, in the case of a preliminary consolidation, several claims can not be divided into one litigation procedure, so some of the judgments such as accepting only the preliminary claims without first judging the main claims, or rejecting only the main claims and not judging the conjunctive claims are contrary to the nature of the preliminary consolidation, and are not legally allowed.

Therefore, where the first instance court rendered a judgment that did not judge the conjunctive claim while rejecting the main claim, if an appeal is filed against the judgment, the part of the conjunctive claim falls under the omission of the judgment, and thus, the part of the conjunctive claim which was not judged by the original court is not continued in the trial but also the part of the conjunctive

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da22253 delivered on November 16, 2000). Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiffs appealed against the Defendants.