1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff terminated a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, and the Defendants handed over real estate stated in the purport of the claim, and sought confirmation as to whether the Defendants carried out corporeal movables in the said real estate.

In a litigation for confirmation, the past legal relationship is merely a premise to resolve the present dispute, even if it affects the present legal relationship, so it is not necessary to recognize the litigation for confirmation as to the existence of the past legal relationship in addition to recognizing the litigation for confirmation as to the present legal relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1280, Apr. 25, 1988, etc.). Moreover, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of facts is permitted only when there are legal interests to be immediately determined as to the present specific rights or the existence of legal relations, and a lawsuit seeking confirmation of facts, such as past facts, is not permissible.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da23872 delivered on December 8, 1992, etc.). The Plaintiff asserts that there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the termination, etc. of the lease relationship, since it is probable that the representative director of Defendant B, in the future, may file various claims with the Plaintiff regarding the lease agreement as stated in the purport of the claim.

However, the termination of a lease contract is the past legal relationship, and even if it affects the present legal relationship, it is merely a premise to resolve the present dispute, or it is merely a fact-finding. Therefore, the benefit of confirmation cannot be recognized.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.