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

In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as the confirmation judgment to eliminate the anxiety and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). The Plaintiff seeks to cancel the apartment sale contract concluded on July 22, 201 with the Defendant with the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and to confirm that the Plaintiff’s obligation to return unjust enrichment to the Defendant following the cancellation does not exceed KRW 21,058,450.

However, the defendant does not dispute whether or not the plaintiff has cancelled the apartment sale contract or the existence and scope of the obligation to return unjust enrichment following the cancellation.

Although the intervenor joining the defendant is dissatisfied with the cancellation of the apartment sale contract, even if the judgment of the lawsuit to confirm the existence of the obligation of this case against the defendant becomes final and conclusive, the res judicata of the judgment does not affect the intervenor joining the defendant.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation, and it is so decided as per Disposition.