beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The lawsuit on the part of the claim for confirmation, which is added in the trial, shall be dismissed;
3...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the following judgments with respect to the claims added at the court of first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. 1) If it is confirmed that there is no fact that the Defendant secured ownership of the instant land, the Defendant joined the Plaintiff as a member for the purpose of applying for authorization of completion, or exercises the right to sell the instant land again after selling the land ownership to the Plaintiff. As to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation that there is no interest in confirmation, the Defendant asserts that there is no interest in confirmation since the Defendant’s claim for confirmation does not have a way of confirmation immediately after the fundamental resolution of the dispute over the attribution of ownership. 2) The lawsuit for confirmation is allowed at the time of the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute over the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and to obtain a judgment of confirmation, it is difficult to actively seek confirmation of ownership without seeking confirmation of ownership of the said part in a case where there is a dispute over the ownership of the Plaintiff, and seeking confirmation of the absence of ownership of the other party by passive means without seeking confirmation of ownership of the Plaintiff, as long as the Plaintiff’s ownership is denied, it does not have any interest in confirmation immediately after the fundamental resolution of dispute over the attribution of ownership, unless the dispute is resolved.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da87898, May 24, 2016). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health unit and the ownership of the instant land are attributed to the Plaintiff.