공유물분할
1. The independent party intervenor shall dismiss the lawsuit against the plaintiff;
2. Defendant H, I, and J shall be an independent party intervenor.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Of the forest land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”), 21,654/46,810 shares in the Plaintiff, 1,652/46,810 shares in the Plaintiff, and 3, 198/280,860 shares in each Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G respectively, and 4,306/46,810 shares in each of them owned by an independent party intervenor (hereinafter “participating”), the Cheongju District Court, Busan District Court, as of June 18, 1998, No. 4762, as of June 18, 1998, the ownership transfer registration under the name of Defendant H, I, and J was completed on June 18, 1998, and the ownership transfer registration was completed under the above registry office’s name as of May 28, 201.
B. There was no agreement between the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, the Defendants except the Defendant H, I, and J on the method of dividing the forest of this case.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine whether the intervenor's lawsuit against the plaintiff is legitimate ex officio in determining the legitimacy of the intervenor's lawsuit against the plaintiff.
A lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant in order to eliminate anxietys and risks that exist in the plaintiff's rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). In the case of a lawsuit against the plaintiff by the intervenor, the plaintiff does not dispute whether the share of the defendant H, I, and J, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer under the name of the defendant H, J, and the transfer of ownership based thereon, among the forest land in this case, belongs to the intervenor's ownership or not. Unlike others, even if there is apprehensions or risks in the intervenor's rights in relation to a third party, the judgment against the plaintiff cannot be a valid and appropriate remedy against such judgment.
Therefore, the intervenor is the plaintiff.