beta
Text
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows: (a) the defendant added a judgment on the defense of principal safety that the defendant newly claims in the trial (a) and (b) added a part of the judgment on the merits; and (c) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance; and therefore, (d) this case is cited pursuant to the main sentence of
In light of the fact that the resolution of this case was carried out as it is, the defendant's assertion as to the defendant's interest in confirmation: the defendant's assertion as to the benefit of confirmation is that the offset is carried out after the resolution of this case and the adjustment is established at an annual interest rate of 2.5% even in the lawsuit for return of moving expenses, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risks existing in the legal status of the plaintiffs, and therefore, it is unlawful as there is no benefit
Judgment
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there shall be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation shall be recognized when it is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s risks in present in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da53430, May 27, 2010). In full view of the following circumstances, there is still dispute over the validity of the resolution of this case between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and therefore, the confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case by the Plaintiffs is benefit of such confirmation.
The defendant's main defense is without merit.
The resolution of this case is substantially contrary to equity, because it leads to the transfer of the obligations to be borne by many members to the minority members or forces the unilateral sacrifice or disadvantage of the minority members.
After the resolution of this case, some members and the defendant are as follows.