beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the defendants’ defense of this case raised in the court of first instance is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following determination as to the defendants’ defenses raised in the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The following additions are made under the fourth sentence of the court of first instance.
On November 23, 2017, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to increase compensation for the land and goods owned by the Defendants, etc. on the ground of the Defendants’ objection against the above ruling on expropriation. On December 18, 2017, the Plaintiff made an additional deposit of KRW 54,272,70 as the Busan District Court 2017 as the depositee, and KRW 33,589,830 as the Busan District Court 2017 as the depositee, on December 15, 2017, with Defendant D as the depositee, respectively.
2. Determination on the Defendants’ defense of this case on the grounds of this case’s defense of this case’s defense by the Defendants
A. The Defendants asserted that there is no contractual relationship between the Defendants, who did not consent to the establishment of the association and the implementation of the project, and thus, the Defendants did not have the standing to be a party to the instant lawsuit.
Judgment
In a lawsuit for performance, the Plaintiff’s standing as a party is the Plaintiff’s claim itself. The Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she is the lawful Plaintiff, and the person who asserted that he/she is the obligor from the Plaintiff is the lawful Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not require that the Defendant is the actual right holder or the duty holder (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 1994). As long as the Plaintiff seeks the delivery of the building against the Defendants, the mere fact that the Defendants asserted against the Defendants cannot be seen as having standing as a party to the lawsuit.