1. A lawsuit for confirmation is permissible when there is apprehension and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da60796, Jan. 26, 2006; 2001Da25078, Jun. 28, 2002).

Recognizing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below held that the defendant does not dispute at all the plaintiff's right to use the part of the building for the loan of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of the right to use the loan of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as to the

2. A borrower shall be entitled to take advantage of and benefit from an object under a loan agreement and have the right to seek the delivery of the object to the owner of the leased object. However, the borrower shall not be deemed to have the right to prevent the owner from disposing of the object even if he/she disposes of it for his/her own use and benefit.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's claim of omission against the defendant who is the user-owner against the prohibition of disposal of the part of the building of this case for the duration of the right to use the loan of this case is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the validity of the right

3. Therefore, the appeal is 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 Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)