[2] Whether there is a benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of legal relations between the other party to the lawsuit and the third party (negative)

[3] The case holding that one of the parties to whom attachment and attachment order was issued is unlawful as there is no benefit in confirmation, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the entire debt against the other party against the third party

[2] Where the other party who denies his/her own rights or legal status claims the rights or legal relations against a third party that cannot be compatible with his/her own assertion, seeking confirmation of the existence of the other party’s rights or legal relations against the third party, even if he/she received a favorable judgment in the lawsuit for confirmation, it does not confirm his/her own rights in relation to the other party, but does not affect the third party, and thus, such lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence cannot be an appropriate means to resolve the present apprehension and danger in his/her own rights or legal status, and thus, there is no benefit in confirmation.

[3] The case holding that a lawsuit in which one of the parties to whom attachment and assignment order was issued seeks confirmation of the absence of all the obligations against the other party against the third party is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation

1. The subject of a lawsuit for confirmation must be against the existence of specific rights or legal relations. As to the part of the lawsuit for confirmation of nullity of seizure and assignment order, the court below's determination that the subject of the lawsuit for confirmation sought by the plaintiff is against the seizure and assignment order itself, and it itself cannot be deemed as the current disputed rights or legal relations. It is just and acceptable as it is in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interest of confirmation in the lawsuit for confirmation

2. Generally, since a claim has the ability to receive benefits from an obligor, the obligee can claim the existence of the claim against the obligor and seek reimbursement from the obligor. However, if two or more creditors claim one of them as to one claim, the dispute about the attribution of the claim is not arising between the obligor and the person who asserts himself/herself as the obligee, but is arising between the obligee and the obligee, and if the obligee has received reimbursement from the obligor, the genuine obligee is likely to infringe on his/her rights, and therefore, it is necessary to immediately confirm the attribution of the claim. In order to resolve the dispute between them, it is the most effective remedy for the obligee to obtain the confirmation judgment on the attribution of the claim. Thus, one obligee’s claim against the other party as the obligee is the benefit of confirmation, but it is not the benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu269, Sept. 27, 198) and the other party’s claim or legal relation cannot be asserted by the obligee and the other party’s claim or legal relation with the other party’s own claim or legal relationship with the other party.

In light of the above legal principles, in this case where the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that the claim for construction price of this case against the Yang & Yang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Yang & Yang Construction") was entirely owned by themselves based on the attachment and assignment order that they received by themselves, the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking confirmation that the claim for construction price of this case was not actively sought confirmation that the claim for construction price of this case was reverted to the plaintiff, but actively sought confirmation that the claim for construction price of this case was not reverted to the defendant. Even if the plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment, it does not confirm his own right in relation to the defendant, nor affect Yang & Yang Construction. Thus, the lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence cannot be an effective and appropriate means to solve the plaintiff's rights or legal status in fact, and thus, it is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

This part of the reasoning of the court below is somewhat insufficient, but it is justified in its conclusion that this part of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of the entire deposit obligation against the defendant by Yang & Yang Construction is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. Thus, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the benefit of confirmation in the lawsuit for confirmation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the provisional attachment and assignment order received by the defendant as well as the provisional attachment and assignment order received by the plaintiff was all null and void. The judgment of this part is an additional and family judgment added to the judgment that there is no benefit of confirmation in all of the plaintiff's lawsuits for confirmation of this case, and as long as the judgment of the court below that all of the lawsuits for confirmation of this case were unlawful, it is obvious that the judgment of the court below that the lawsuits for confirmation of this case are unlawful, as seen above, it cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it cannot be accepted as the ground for appeal

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)