A lawsuit for confirmation is permitted when the plaintiff's right or legal status exists in an uneasiness and danger, and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da54024 delivered on September 17, 199). Thus, even though a mortgagee of a real estate has filed a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the right to lease against the lessee of the real estate on the ground that the right or legal status is unstable and dangerous, if the right to collateral is cancelled and the right to collateral is cancelled, such apprehension and risk are extinguished and there is no benefit to confirm it.

According to the records and the statement of the certified copy of the register submitted by the defendant along with the statement of the Reasons for Appeal, the plaintiff is seeking confirmation of the absence of the right of lease against the defendant on the ground that the right of lease claimed by the defendant is hindered due to the execution of the right of lease. However, the plaintiff's establishment registration of the right of lease can be recognized as cancelled on October 16, 2007, which is the date of closing the argument of the court below, and thus, the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since

The judgment of the court below that made a different judgment is erroneous as a result, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it has no interest in the lawsuit and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)