beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. We examine the legality of the instant lawsuit ex officio, and whether the instant lawsuit against the Defendants is legitimate on the grounds of the benefits of confirmation.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, “the benefit of confirmation” is recognized when the party’s right or legal status is currently unstable, dangerous, and removal thereof is the most effective means to obtain a judgment of confirmation. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, filing a lawsuit for confirmation can bring an action for performance, barring any special circumstance, there is no “the benefit of confirmation” against the economy of litigation.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006). We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.
The Plaintiff received KRW 1 million as cash service using B on May 29, 2017. Although Defendant B paid the card price on June 26, 2017, it asserts to the effect that Defendant B again claimed the payment to the Plaintiff on July 26, 2017, and that it sought confirmation of the absence of the said card price.
However, if Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and evidence 3-1 were to show the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant can recognize the fact that the card price 1,199,626 won was paid to the defendant Eul on July 26, 2017, including the cash service price as of May 29, 2017.
Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff has already paid the card price in question, the Plaintiff may bring an action against the Defendants seeking the return of the card price or the compensation for damages on the ground of unjust enrichment or tort, and as long as it can bring an action for performance, it is reasonable to view that the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of the absence of the obligation against the Defendants is unlawful since it does not constitute a "interest for confirmation".
2. As such, the instant lawsuit against the Defendants is all unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.