Where at least two persons claim that one claim is a creditor of each other, whether either party has the benefit to seek confirmation from the other party on the reversion of the claim.

In general, since a claim has the ability to receive payment from a debtor, even in a lawsuit, the obligee claims are ordinarily asserted the existence of the claim against the debtor and seek the payment thereof. However, if two or more creditors claim one another with respect to a claim, the dispute about the attribution of the claim is not arising between the debtor and the person who asserts that it is the creditor, and if the named obligee has received payment from the debtor, the genuine obligee is likely to infringe on his/her rights, so it is necessary to immediately confirm the attribution of the claim between the nominal obligee and the nominal obligee, and it is necessary to obtain a judgment on the attribution of the claim as the most effective remedy means, and in order to resolve the dispute between them, it is the most effective remedy means to confirm the attribution of the claim. Therefore, a claim seeking confirmation on the attribution of the claim against the other party who asserts that the claim belongs to himself/herself is the interest of such confirmation.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 13 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant 1 and 8 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Il-young

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na642 delivered on July 24, 1987

Daejeon District Court Decision 86Gahap57 delivered on January 14, 1987

Of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the plaintiffs' preliminary claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below is justified in its reasoning that the plaintiffs' claim for compensation against the defendants at 5,00 square meters of the land in this case constitutes the exclusion of the river area under Article 2 (1) 2 (c) of the River Act (Act No. 2292 of Jan. 19, 1971), and thus the plaintiff's claim for compensation against the state under Article 2 of the Addenda of the River Act (Act No. 3782 of Dec. 31, 1984) is against the plaintiffs. The plaintiff's claim for compensation can be confirmed as the non-party's claim. In this case, it can be confirmed as to whether the plaintiff or the defendants have the right to the state against the third party. However, even if the plaintiff's claim for compensation is the most appropriate means to eliminate the legal uncertainty, the plaintiff's claim for compensation against the state is not denied, interfered with or infringed, and thus, it is not clear that the defendants' claim for compensation against the above plaintiff's claim for compensation against the defendants under Article 20 of the River Act.

However, in light of the records, the above land was originally trusted by the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, and non-party 2, etc., who is the deceased's predecessor, and thus, the land became a river site, and the claim for compensation was reverted to the deceased and succeeded to the deceased's death. Even if the above three persons were registered in the future at the time the above claim for compensation was made, the Defendants asserted that the above claim for compensation was reverted to their own rights and sought confirmation. Accordingly, the purport of the claim is not to confirm the existence of the claim for compensation against the defendants, but to seek confirmation as to the attribution of the claim for compensation on the premise of the existence of the State's claim for compensation against the defendants.

However, in general, since a claim has the ability to receive benefits from a debtor, the obligee claims are ordinarily asserted the existence of the claim against the debtor and seek the payment thereof even in court. However, if two or more creditors claim one another with respect to a claim, the dispute about the attribution of the claim is not arising between the debtor and the person who asserts it as the creditor, but is arising between the obligee and the person who asserts it as the creditor, and if the named obligee has received reimbursement from the obligor, the genuine obligee is likely to infringe on his/her rights, so it is necessary to immediately confirm the attribution of the claim between the nominal obligee and the nominal obligee, and it is necessary to obtain a judgment on the attribution of the claim as the most effective remedy for the dispute between them. In order to resolve the dispute, the claim seeking confirmation on the attribution of the claim should be accepted as the most effective remedy for the claim. Therefore, one of the parties who asserts as the obligee himself/herself belongs to the other party to the claim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the Plaintiffs’ claim to seek confirmation against the Defendants as to the existence of the right to claim compensation against the third party, and, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, deeming the Plaintiffs to have no benefit in the confirmation of the instant case does not err by misapprehending the parties’ assertion and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the benefit of confirmation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

The argument is with merit.

The Plaintiffs did not appeal against the lower judgment in full, but did not appeal against the principal portion of the claim.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the case is remanded to the court of first instance, the remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)