A lawsuit’s legality seeking confirmation of the affiliated end group of the inspection (negative)

Seeking confirmation that the inspection of this case belongs to the plaintiff (Korean Buddhist inspection)'s final dissolution is not a confirmation of the existence of ownership, etc. of the specific property belonging to the inspection, nor a specific contract or legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant about the right of the inspection between the plaintiff and the defendant, which is merely a matter of factual relations, but not a matter of specific rights or legal relations. Thus, it is not the object of confirmation.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] J.S. J. J. J. J. J.

D. D. D. S. T. B. et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 82Na1516 delivered on April 26, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The main point of the grounds of appeal is that the ○○○○, the inspector of this case, sought confirmation of the completion of the inspection from the Plaintiff’s religious team is not a private legal right or legal relation, but merely seeking confirmation of the facts about the completion of the inspection to which the inspection belongs, and thus, the court below held that it is unlawful as a lawsuit for confirmation. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in law in interpreting laws contrary to the Supreme Court Decision 4292Da224 Decided July 21, 1960. However, the court below did not seek confirmation of the existence of a specific contract or legal relation concerning the management of ○○○○○, and it does not constitute a mere factual relation, and it does not constitute a lawsuit for confirmation, and therefore it does not conflict with the legal interpretation of the legal interpretation of the lawsuit for confirmation specified by the judgment below, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal or determination of the legal principles as to the right to the inspection, etc., and therefore, it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal No. 1.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)