logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.07.27 2018나34197
무효확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. This part of the judgment of this court is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the statement "1. Facts recognized".

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of a claim for sale under Article 39 of the former Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the defendant's main right to defense was already finalized, and the judgment of the previous lawsuit of this case on the validity of the defendant's claim for sale became final and conclusive, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is required to be immediately removed because there is an unstable risk in rights or legal status, and it is the most effective means to get a confirmation judgment to eliminate such unstable danger. Thus, as long as the judgment of the previous suit of this case accepting the defendant's claim against the plaintiff by filing a claim for ownership transfer registration based on a claim for sale claim under Article 39 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, the validity of the defendant's claim for sale is affected by the plaintiff's current rights and legal status. Thus, the plaintiff has a benefit of confirmation because it can eliminate risks or apprehensions about his current rights or legal status effectively by receiving a judgment on the validity of the defendant's claim for sale.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the above principal safety is without merit.

3. As to the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff’s claim for sale under Article 39 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the Defendant’s Real Estate is required to exercise the claim for sale, such as written consent on reconstruction, resolution for reconstruction, peremptory notice without delay in writing, and claim for sale

arrow