A. Whether there is a benefit in the confirmation of a lawsuit seeking simple factual verification (negative)

(b) A lawsuit seeking confirmation that the registration of inspection has been cancelled on the end of any inspection (negative)

C. Whether a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of appointment of a chief executive officer is appropriate against the chief executive officer (negative)

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, mere fact-finding does not have the interest in confirmation.

B. In a case where the plaintiff seeks confirmation that the registration of a temple was cancelled on the final part of a certain temple, it is a direct and specific method to seek confirmation of ownership or exclusion of interference with the exercise of ownership if the plaintiff is the owner of the temple building, etc., and the confirmation of cancellation of registration of the temple is not an assistance to confirm the legal relationship of the plaintiff, and it is merely a mere fact-finding confirmation even if the above confirmation claim is the purport of seeking confirmation that the temple will not belong to the final part.

(c) In the case of seeking confirmation of invalidity of appointment of a chief executive officer against the chief executive officer, the chief executive officer's appointment is a relationship between the chief executive officer and the chief executive officer, and the judgment cannot have the effect of the final decision against the chief executive officer. Therefore, there is no interest in the final decision as it does not help the dispute resolution between the chief executive officer and the defendant.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Da325 delivered on July 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 1344) delivered on September 29, 1962

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na3810 delivered on May 21, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

Inasmuch as mere factual verification in a lawsuit for confirmation does not have a benefit of confirmation, the court below's determination that ○○○○'s registration of members was cancelled as of May 28, 1982 is merely a mere confirmation of past facts, and thus dismissed the part of the lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff's exercise of rights as the owner of the legal party, industrial sense, housing, etc. which constitutes the plaintiff's "○○○", and the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's exercise of rights based on the rights and interests protected by the Buddhist Foundation Management Act on the basis of the registration of inspection as the legal entity of ○○○○○ as the ground for the cancellation of the above inspection registration. Thus, it is necessary to obtain confirmation that the above inspection registration is cancelled so that the dispute over the rights between the plaintiff and the defendant is limited to the dispute over the rights between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the above confirmation of cancellation of the inspection is argued to have a benefit of confirmation as it affects the current legal relationship. However, if the plaintiff is the owner of the building of the above inspection, etc., it is a method of direct and detailed dispute type seeking confirmation of ownership or exclusion of interference with the exercise of ownership. The confirmation of the registration of the inspection is not a way to confirm the plaintiff's legal relationship, but it is merely a mere mere confirmation of facts that the above inspection does not belong to the legal entity (see the theory of party members of July 3825, 198).

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The plaintiff is seeking confirmation of nullity of the appointment of chief executive officer of October 25, 1982, who appointed the defendant as chief executive officer of ○○○○, and the appointment of chief executive officer of December 7, 1984. Such appointment of chief executive officer is the relation between the chief executive officer and the defendant and the defendant, which cannot affect the conclusion of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the plaintiff.

In the above purport, the court below's rejection of the benefit of confirmation is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

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