Main Issues

In case of an incomplete hearing on whether or not there is a benefit of action, it is an error of law.

Summary of Judgment

If a lease contract subject to a disposition of revocation is terminated and cannot continue to exist, the plaintiff has no interest in maintaining the lawsuit, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 63Nu140 Delivered on May 12, 1964

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

The head of the Nowon-gu Tax Office

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Defendant 1 and 16 others

original decision

Seoul High Court Decision 67Gu161 delivered on October 22, 1968

Text

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

As to the assertion that the lease contract on the real estate held by the plaintiff among the second points of appeal No. 2 by the defendant and the supplementary intervenor for the defendant cannot continue to exist, the lease contract on the real estate held by the plaintiff cannot be concluded on July 9, 1957 with the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and the contract on the lease with the defendant and the non-party 2 was cancelled on June 24, 1963, and the contract was concluded under the non-party 3's sole name. According to the statement of Article 2 of the contract on the lease of the property held by the non-party 41 without dispute between the parties adopted by the original judgment, the effective period of the contract shall be one year counting from the date of conclusion of the contract, and the contract shall be deemed to have been renewed under the same condition without any special opinion expressed by the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the contract shall be deemed to have been renewed under the same condition, and thus, the defendant shall be deemed to have no special reasons for cancellation of the contract 97.