[1] Whether the legal relationship between one of the parties to a lawsuit and a third party or between a third party can be subject to a lawsuit for confirmation (affirmative), and the requirements for the benefit of confirmation of such legal relationship

[2] In a case where Eul et al. sought confirmation of the non-existence of an officer status of Eul et al. as former executive officer Byung et al., the case holding that Byung et al.'s lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of an officer status of Eul et al. can be an effective and appropriate means for removal of existing risks and non-existence of an officer status of Eul et al., on the premise that Byung et al. had a legitimate officer status of the clanC et al.

[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da23388 decided Nov. 8, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3240) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da96963, 96970 decided Feb. 25, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 627)

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm continental Aju, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dr. Dr. Mamulop Masan Cr. Cr.

Intervenor 1 and two others (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Cho Yong-research et al., Counsel for the intervenor-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na71277 decided April 5, 2013

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the parties, but can also be subject to the legal relationship between one of the parties and a third party or between a third party. In order to have the interest to confirm the legal relationship, the legal relationship must lead to the risk or non-existence of the party’s rights or legal status. In order to eliminate the risk or non-performance, it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship by the confirmation judgment covering the legal relationship, and it shall be the most effective and appropriate means (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da23388, Nov. 8, 1994; 2008Da96963, 96970, Feb. 25, 2010, etc.).

2. The court below determined that the judgment of confirmation that the supplementary intervenor 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “former executives”) of the defendant and the defendant Susung Pacheon Wasan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the defendant's clan”) are not in the position of executive officers, such as the president, secretary, and auditor of the defendant clan clan, the plaintiffs who are the grounds for the dissolution of the defendant clan clan clan shall not dispute the legality of the legal act related to the clan property performed by all executive officers of the defendant clan clan on or before April 5, 2012, or whether the former executive officers of the defendant had the right to perform their duties until the appointment of the former executive officers after the expiration of their terms of office shall not be an effective and appropriate means in accordance with the above legal principles.

3. However, according to the records, in the first instance court and the lower court, the Plaintiffs asserted that all the officers of the Defendant were in the position of executive officers of the Defendant clan before April 5, 2012, and that they were performing their duties as executive officers, such as performing legal acts related to the clan property as if they were legitimate executive officers of the Defendant clan clan. Thus, if multiple legal relations have been formed on the premise that all the officers of the Defendant were in the position of legitimate executive officers of the Defendant clan clan, and there is possibility that the new legal relations may be formed, then they can expect a direct and uniform resolution by seeking confirmation of the existence of the status of executive officers of the Defendant clan clan, who are the members of the dispute, before individually resolving the legal relations. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of executive status of the Defendant clan may be an effective and appropriate means in removing the Plaintiffs’ rights or legal status existing risks and losses.

Nevertheless, solely based on the above circumstances, the court below determined that the plaintiffs' action for confirmation of the non-existence of executive status against the defendant clan clan was unlawful. Thus, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the plaintiffs' assertion rights or legal status, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)