Whether a request for confirmation of a cooperative member against a Gu to which the competent authority belongs under the Urban Redevelopment Act has a benefit in confirming the management and disposal plan.

The issue of whether A is a participating partner of the Housing Improvement Development Cooperative shall be determined in accordance with the articles of association of the above union, and even if the above union has obtained authorization from the head of the competent authority by making a management and disposal plan that excludes A from participating partners by presenting opinions that the above union shall not be a participating partner, the status of A's participating partner is not determined by the Gu's expression of opinion or the disposition of authorization, and even if the judgment was rendered by Gap's request, the validity of the judgment cannot be the most appropriate way as a means of resolving disputes between the parties surrounding the status of participating partners, and therefore, there is no benefit in confirmation of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of participation partner with respect to the Gu.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 17 and 20(3) of the Urban Redevelopment Act; Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Redevelopment Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Da14058 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 1998) 91Da12905 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2156) 91Da37683 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192,1841)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Law Firm North East-dong Office, Attorney Lee Jong-seok, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Seongdong-gu Attorney Kim Dong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na29541 delivered on December 21, 1993

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed and the judgment is revoked.

The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that there is no benefit in confirmation on the ground that the defendant has a legal interest in seeking confirmation on the appointment of the member of the non-party association for the purpose of exercising rights as the member of the non-party association, such as accepting the delegation of authority of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and approving the implementation and management and disposal plan of the housing improvement redevelopment project by the non-party cooperative, and the non-party association is in the position of guiding and supervising the whole housing redevelopment project, since the construction facility completed by the non-party association due to the implementation of the project is in the position of performing the completion inspection as a premise for selling in lots in accordance with the management and disposal plan, and as long as the defendant contestss

However, the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation shall be permitted only when it is most effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da12905, Jul. 12, 1991; 90Da14058, Jun. 25, 1991; 90Da14058, Jun. 25, 199). Under Article 17 and Article 20(3) of the Urban Redevelopment Act, and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when a redevelopment project is implemented by establishing the association, the matters concerning the qualifications of participating partners shall be determined by the articles of association. Thus, the issue of whether the plaintiff who resided as the tenant in the original project district or the plaintiff who was transferred his status from the above non-party constitutes the participating member of the non-party association shall be determined by the articles of association of the non-party association.

As determined by the court below, the defendant presented the opinion that the above non-party 1 cannot be a participating partner by moving to the non-party association before the project implementation authorization date, and even if the non-party association has obtained authorization from the head of the Gu belonging to the defendant, who is the competent authority, by creating a management and disposal plan to exclude the plaintiff from the participating partner, the status of the plaintiff's participating partner is not fixed by such defendant's expression of opinion or authorization disposition, and even if the judgment citing the plaintiff's claim was rendered, it cannot be said that the judgment's effect extends to the non-party association as a fundamental means of resolving disputes between the parties surrounding

Therefore, the lawsuit in this case, for which the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the status of participating partner, against the defendant, shall be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in its confirmation. The court below's decision that the plaintiff had a legal interest in seeking confirmation against the defendant as a member of the non-party association is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the benefit of confirmation, and therefore, the argument

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is reasonable to render a judgment on the party members, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)