It does not seem that it is the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status’s current uneasiness or risk.

The plaintiff is not a party to the above judgments, and only one of them is to seek confirmation of the existence of res judicata does not appear to be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's rights or legal status in danger or in danger. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit in confirmation.

2013Du47533 Confirmation of res judicata of double judgment

IsaA

Korea

October 7, 2013

October 24, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court confirms that the Seoul Southern District Court 2007Kahap15210 and the Seoul Southern District Court 201Gahap12618 on the OO-dong O-dong O-dong 993-22 and above-ground buildings have res judicata effect in the Seoul Southern District Court 2007Gahap15210.

1. Summary of the cause of claim;

A. The Plaintiff, at the time of theO of the Social Welfare Foundation BB Foundation (hereinafter “Foundation”), subrogated for a debt to the Co., Ltd. for the Co., Ltd., and prevented the Plaintiff from doing so beyond auction.

B. In addition, on September 5, 2008, the Korea TCC CCC (hereinafter referred to as the “CCC”) has filed a lawsuit against the Foundation and the Republic of Korea to file a claim for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration against the Seoul Southern District Court 2007Kahap15210 (hereinafter referred to as the “CCC”) with the Seoul Southern District Court. The Foundation was sentenced to the judgment on September 5, 2008 that “the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate shall be implemented,” and the instant real estate was again owned

C. However, even though the Association did not guard the instant real estate in collusion with ECE, it was sentenced on March 23, 201 that "the Foundation filed a security claim lawsuit against the Foundation 201Kahap12618, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment on March 23, 2012 that "the Association shall pay OOOO and its delay damages to the DDR," and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time, the instant real estate was seized.

D. Therefore, the Seoul Southern District Court 2007Gahap15210, which is based on the facts of the above two final judgments related to the instant real estate, shall be deemed to have res judicata effect, thus seeking confirmation of the existence of such res judicata effect.

2. Determination on this safety defense

On the other hand, the plaintiff is not a party to the above decisions, and only one of them is to seek confirmation of the existence of res judicata does not seem to be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's rights or legal status in danger and danger. Therefore, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

Furthermore, the above two final and conclusive judgments are different from the parties, and there is no practical benefit to discuss the effect of res judicata.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.