beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Upon the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff: (a) lent the business registration name of “C” to the Defendant from October 26, 2004 to November 30, 2006 upon the Defendant’s request; (b) however, there were disadvantages, such as the Defendant’s failure to pay the relevant taxes, causing various seizures due to delinquency in payment; and (c) during the above period, the actual business operator of “C” seeks confirmation of the Defendant.
2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status and the apprehension and risk thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45140, Jul. 23, 2015). Even if the Plaintiff is rendered a judgment on confirmation against the Defendant as stated in the claim against the Defendant in this case, the effect of the judgment does not affect the effect of taxation against the Plaintiff, as it does not extend to the Republic of Korea or the competent local government, etc., which is the third party who is the
The Plaintiff’s assertion that the taxation by the Plaintiff was unlawful is the most effective and appropriate means to challenge it in the administrative litigation, etc., and even if it was no longer possible to dispute the above taxation due to the lapse of the filing period, it can be relieved of its rights by means of seeking a return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant.
Therefore, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed as the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit in its confirmation.
3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.