임대차계약 무효 확인
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the part added in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The following judgments shall be added between the first instance judgment Nos. 10, 4, and 5.
Furthermore, we examine whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the instant lease agreement concluded between the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to remove the plaintiff's rights or legal status in danger and danger.
A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to legal relations between the plaintiff and the defendant, but can be subject to legal relations between the plaintiff and a third party or between third parties. However, in order to eliminate the risks or apprehensions that may arise in the plaintiff's rights or legal status in relation to legal relations, it is necessary to immediately determine the legal relations by using the confirmation judgment between the plaintiff and the defendant as the object of confirmation, and the benefit of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means.
This legal doctrine applies to cases where one of the original and the Defendant entered into a contract or agreement with a third party, but a dispute arises over the rescission or termination of such contract or agreement later (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017). The fact that the subject of the instant lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant is not the Plaintiffs but the Defendant’s Intervenor is the Defendant’s Intervenor. As such, the said lease agreement cannot be deemed as directly unstable or dangerous in the rights or legal status of the Plaintiffs, which are merely the members of the Defendant’s Intervenor.