[소유권확인청구사건][고집1973민(2), 459]
Benefits of Confirmation in respect of Ownership Confirmation
In a case where the plaintiff asserts that his ownership belongs to a third party other than himself in seeking confirmation of ownership, the defendant has a benefit of confirmation only when the defendant claims a legal relationship that obstructs the plaintiff's exercise of rights or makes it difficult to recover his rights due to any legal interest, and it is deemed that the risk of the plaintiff's status as the right holder is likely to occur. Therefore, when the defendant claims that he belongs to a third party without claiming such legal relationship, there is no benefit of confirmation.
Articles 228 and 237 of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Korea
United Kingdom of America
Seoul and Criminal District Court (72Gahap169) in the first instance trial.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
The judgment confirming that 3204 square meters of Cheongsung-gu, Cheongsung-si, Cheongsung-gun, Gyeonggi-do owned by the plaintiff
Judgment such as cancellation and purport of the original judgment
ex officio, this article examines the existence of interest in the confirmation of the lawsuit.
In the event that there is a concern over the risk of risk to the status of the plaintiff as the right holder due to the dispute over the rights or legal relations that the plaintiff becomes the subject, the plaintiff is required to remove it and there is a legal interest to seek confirmation of such rights or legal relations by the lawsuit against the defendant in order to protect the status
Therefore, when the plaintiff files a lawsuit to confirm the existence of a right, not only the case where the defendant contests that the right belongs to himself, but also the case where the right is claimed as a third party's right, when the plaintiff asserts the legal relationship that obstructs the plaintiff's exercise of right or makes it difficult to recover the right due to the legal interest belonging to the defendant's rights, it may be at the risk of the plaintiff's status as the right holder. Therefore, the plaintiff has a legal interest to confirm the
However, if the defendant does not make such a assertion, but the plaintiff does not have any legal relationship from the original point of view, and therefore, if the plaintiff is not in a position to have any influence on the attribution of his right, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant Eul to seek confirmation of his own right, and even if the defendant claims that his right belongs to a third party, it cannot be said that it is a dance lawsuit and it would cause any danger to the plaintiff's status as the plaintiff's right holder. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest to confirm the attribution of his right against the defendant Eul.
(However, the defendant's right is transferred falsely to a third party as a means to avoid the plaintiff's claim, and such assertion shall be excluded as the defendant claims that this right belongs to himself.
In this case, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's ownership was owned by the non-party 1 of the plaintiff's father, through the non-party 2 of the plaintiff's father, and that the plaintiff's ownership of the above real estate was owned by the defendant Eul, the defendant's claim against the defendant Eul as the ownership of the above real estate is merely a claim that the real estate was owned by the defendant, the supplementary intervenor of the defendant, and (a) according to the Eul evidence No. 5 of this case's judgment No. 5 of this case's judgment No. 1 of this case's judgment No. 1 of 1973, March 2, 1973, the preservation registration was made as the possession of the above real estate as the defendant's ownership, and there is no legal relation with the defendant, and it cannot be asserted that the defendant's status could be proved or proved as the right holder's status as the plaintiff's right holder.
Therefore, the plaintiff's principal lawsuit is dismissed because there is no interest in seeking confirmation of ownership against the defendant Eul. The original judgment is judged differently from this, and the original judgment is revoked in a different conclusion, and the costs of lawsuit are to be borne by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judges Heung-si (Presiding Judge)