1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the Defendant’s claim for nullification of the attachment disposition rendered on May 11, 2018 against the Plaintiff is revoked, and the above part is revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the judgment, is to be stated in this judgment, shall be determined ex officio pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the following grounds: (a) the third 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “........" (b) was used as “the December 16, 2006,” and “the judgment on the claim to nullify the invalidity of the seizure disposition of this case,” and (c) the fifth 2 to 6th 10, as follows, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

A lawsuit for confirmation is permitted to eliminate risks or apprehensions in relation to the current rights or legal status. In the case of past legal relations, there is benefit in confirmation when obtaining a judgment on confirmation of the legal relations is deemed to be valid and appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions in relation to the current rights or legal status.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1496 Decided November 26, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da36407 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.). According to the records, the Defendant released the instant attachment disposition on January 17, 2020 during the instant lawsuit, upon the Plaintiff’s full payment of the administrative fine in arrears, and accordingly, revoked the attachment registration for the Dongjak-gu Seoul T building and Uho (hereinafter “instant building”).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is seeking confirmation of the past legal relationship, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the already rescinded seizure disposition, and as long as the seizure disposition of this case is rescinded, it is difficult to view that it has any impact on the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff has the interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the attachment disposition of this case.