1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff received a title trust from the Defendant for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed each registration of ownership transfer, at the Defendant’s request, completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said real estate to a third party. However, the competent tax office intends to impose taxes, such as capital gains tax, on the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant

The plaintiff is seeking confirmation of the above title trust relationship in order to eliminate anxietys and risks in such rights or legal status.

2. Ex officio determination on the legitimacy of the lawsuit

A. The issue of whether a lawsuit is illegal as there is no benefit of its confirmation is an ex officio investigation, and thus the court should decide ex officio regardless of the party's assertion.

(see Supreme Court Decision 91Da12905, Jul. 12, 1991). In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is currently unstable and dangerous, and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate anxiety and risk (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da21643, Mar. 30, 201).

In this case, the apprehension that capital gains tax, etc. may be imposed on the Plaintiff is merely an actual economic interest and cannot be deemed as causing any risk or apprehensions to the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status. In the event of the imposition of capital gains tax in the future, it would be a direct means to resolve related disputes.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed the most effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status’s instability or risk, and thus, the instant lawsuit does not have a benefit of confirmation.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.