1. The adjudication procedure has the significance of independent existence separate from the compulsory execution procedure as the conceptual solution procedure of a dispute, so whether it is possible to enforce is not an absolute reason, even if it cannot be an absolute reason to deny the benefit of a lawsuit seeking performance, the benefit of a lawsuit cannot be deemed to be recognized even in a case where legal interest is denied because there is no practical benefit to seek performance. In particular, since the judgment ordering a statement of a doctor is deemed to have made at the same time as the final judgment became final and conclusive (Article 263(1) of the Civil Execution Act), in a case where a statement by a doctor is deemed to have a legal effect, there is a benefit to seek by a lawsuit, but if there is no legal effect, it cannot be said that there

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Defendant’s agreement that, upon entering into a collective agreement on September 30, 2009 with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, “the Defendant shall establish 5% of the exclusive interest every year as an intra-company labor welfare fund (hereinafter “welfare fund”) pursuant to the former Act on the intra-company Labor Welfare Fund (repealed by Act No. 10361, Dec. 9, 2010; hereinafter “former Welfare Fund”) for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the Plaintiff’s members” (hereinafter “instant agreement”) to the effect that the Defendant would not have agreed to contribute the welfare fund within 0 weeks from the date of this case’s collective agreement to the Chairman of the Korea District Heating Fund Council (hereinafter “the instant council”), for the reason that there was no need for the Defendant to make additional contribution from the date of the instant meeting to the members of the Council within the scope of 0-year meeting to be 0% of its own interest to be funded within the scope of the instant agreement and that the Defendant would not have any obligation to contribute the Fund within 5% of the instant agreement.

3. However, the council of this case is composed of the same number of members representing workers and employers (Article 55(1) of the Framework Act on Labor Welfare), and its meetings shall be convened by the chairperson, but the chairperson shall convene a meeting without delay if requested by workers' members or employers' members to convene a meeting (Article 42(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). As a result, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant to require the Defendant’s representative members, who are the members of the council of this case, to demand the convocation of the meeting and to express their intent to agree on the proposal for additional contribution of the welfare fund, by fulfilling the duty to cooperate under the agreement of this case (Article 42(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). Ultimately, the instant case is a lawsuit seeking the Defendant’s representative to demand the convocation of a meeting and to give the Defendant’s consent on the proposal. As such, it can be acknowledged that the judgment becomes final and conclusive as a claim, and thus any legal effect may arise.

However, on the records, the Defendant’s demanding or ordering the members of the Council of this case to convene a meeting and give consent to the proposal of this case cannot be seen as having a legal obligation or being bound by the Defendant’s demand or instruction. Thus, even if the Plaintiff’s favorable judgment by the lawsuit of this case became final and conclusive and the Defendant’s statement is deemed to have been made, it does not bring about the legal effect on the part of the Plaintiff. Ultimately, the lawsuit of this case seeking the performance of the duty of cooperation by seeking a statement of intent on the same content as the above claim is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit

Nevertheless, the court below's judgment cannot be maintained as it is, since it entered the main body and deliberated and judged.

4. The judgment of the court below is reversed by the assent of all participating Justices, and this case is sufficient for the court to render a direct judgment pursuant to Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed in exchange for the original judgment, and the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by each party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)