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

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation must be immediately removed because of the plaintiff's right or legal status unstable and danger, and the removal of such apprehension and risk is recognized only as the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant. Thus, in a case where the plaintiff's right or legal status is not in danger or there is no special circumstance, or where there is no practical necessity to receive a judgment of confirmation due to the plaintiff's uncertainty, risk removal due to the existence of other special circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation, and thus, the lawsuit for confirmation is not allowed.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da13480 delivered on June 9, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 94Da21559 delivered on August 11, 1995, etc.). Even in the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant development charges should be borne by the Defendants, the final owner of the building under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and even in each contract entered in the separate sheet, it is difficult to find an agreement as to the final owner of the development charges. Thus, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff requested the Defendants to fully share the development charges in an internal relationship, solely on the ground that the Plaintiff is demanding the Defendants to fully share the development charges, there is an apprehension, risk, and need to immediately remove them.

In other words, the plaintiff's lawsuit of confirmation of this case is deemed unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, so it is decided as per Disposition.