2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that although the building of this case owned by the defendant did not exist on the ground of the land of this case, the defendant received the housing relocation expenses from the association and suffered damages from the association members including the plaintiff, under the premise that the building of this case owned by the defendant exists, and the defendant received the housing relocation expenses from the association of this case under the premise that the building of this case exists. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the plaintiff is seeking confirmation as to the absence of the building of

On the other hand, the benefit of confirmation is recognized when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment in order to eliminate such unstable danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). Inasmuch as a direct party to a dispute seeks confirmation against a person who is not a party to the dispute, barring special circumstances, it cannot be viewed as an effective and appropriate means to resolve the plaintiff's right or legal status unstable, and thus, it is difficult to deem that there is a benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da4382, Jun. 29, 1993). In this case, the plaintiff is confirmed that the defendant is not a member of the association of this case due to the absence of the building of this case, and the effect of the judgment on the non-existence of the building of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant does not extend to the association of this case, and the defendant does not immediately lose the plaintiff's legal status as a member of the association of this case.