beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.06.07 2017가합11625

미불용지 확인의 소

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion received a decision to sell shares of 2/6 shares among B/165 square meters of B/Si roads, and 2/6 shares of 23 square meters of C/3 square meters of roads (hereinafter “instant land”) by compulsory auction, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of shares transfer on July 3, 2013 by Changwon District Court Heading the Changwon District Court’s 17437.

The instant land is used as a road, and the Defendant did not pay compensation to the former owners or co-owners of the instant land while designating the instant land as an urban planning road and implementing the project. Accordingly, the instant land constitutes the unpaid land and the Si/Gu is obligated to pay compensation to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant land. Therefore, the Defendant is seeking confirmation of the non-unclaimed land.

2. We examine whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

A lawsuit for confirmation shall be permitted where there is a benefit to immediately determine the current rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute, and it is not possible to seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation separately in the case of a claim for performance, because it cannot be a valid and appropriate means in light of the litigation economy, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

As such, it is not allowed to obtain confirmation from a person who is not a party to a direct dispute, and it is unlawful as there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation, since it is not significantly effective to eliminate the apprehension of legal status, barring special circumstances.

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da6757, Jul. 23, 1991). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff sought the confirmation of the fact that the land in this case is the unclaimed land, separate from seeking the performance of the obligation to pay compensation to the Defendant, is an independent lawsuit.