[1] The standard for determining whether a legal interest exists in seeking confirmation of the status of the Jeju master

[2] In a case where there is a dispute over the ownership, etc. of the property offered for use by the third party between the third party and the third party, whether the third party has a benefit to seek confirmation of the status of the third party under Article 1008-3 of the Civil Code against the third party (negative)

[1] It is reasonable to view that the succession to the property used for the expulsion under Article 1008-3 of the Civil Code belongs to the inheritance in essence, and it is reasonable to view that the special exception to inheritance is stipulated in order to continue the expulsion of a family member. In light of the legislative history and content of Article 1008-3 of the Civil Code, in a case where there is a dispute between the parties as to the attribution of the property used for the expulsion and thus is related to specific rights or legal relations, it shall be deemed that there is a legal interest to seek confirmation of the status of the expelled in the premise of resolving the dispute. However, regardless of such rights or legal relations, it shall not be deemed that there is a legal interest to seek confirmation of the status of the expelled in the clan in relation to who is the member of the clan in the course of carrying out the procedures for proposing the qualification of the expelled in a clan as to the qualification of the simple expelled in a clan, regardless of such rights or legal relations.

[2] In a case where there is a dispute over the ownership, etc. of the property for use by the third party between the third party and the third party, this is not a dispute over the succession of the property for use by the co-inheritors pursuant to Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act, but a dispute over the general property-related dispute, not over the status of the third party, which serves as the basis for the succession of the property for use by the third party pursuant to Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the third party as the third party should not seek a confirmation of the status of the third party as the third party

[1] Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da45452 decided Jul. 4, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1503)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term or “the term”

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na116828 decided October 7, 2010

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 108-3 of the Civil Act provides that “The ownership of farmland within 1 information belonging to a tombstone and farmland within 600 square meters and farmland belonging to a tombstone shall be succeeded by the person presiding over the deceased.” The former Civil Act, enacted by Act No. 471 of February 2, 1958, without providing for general provisions regarding the inheritance, takes possession of the deceased’s inheritance within the category of morality and customs, while the ownership of farmland within 1 information belonging to a tomb under Article 96 and farmland within 600 square meters and land within 60 square meters and land belonging to a tomb (hereinafter “property to be used”) under the premise that the deceased’s heir’s legal status belongs to the deceased’s legal status and the deceased’s legal status within 00 square meters and the deceased’s legal status and the deceased’s legal status under Article 108 of the Civil Act, which shall be deemed to belong to the deceased’s legal status and the deceased’s legal status under Article 208 of the Civil Act, which, instead of the deceased’s legal status of the deceased’s inheritance.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff's clan is seeking confirmation against the defendant who is a clan, which is a legitimate owner of the property used for the production of the defendant's memorial services, such as the memorial services of the non-party 1 before he was dead and admitted to the non-party 1. The plaintiff's claim of this case does not dispute the plaintiff's claim of this case by the date of the closing of argument in the court below. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is merely seeking confirmation as to whether the defendant will preside over the religious services of the non-party 1, etc. of the non-party 1, who is a common ancestor within the defendant's clan where the non-party 1 et al. gathering the religious services of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, etc. of the non-party 1, who is a common ancestor, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's legal status is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's judgment to eliminate the anxiety and risk (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.). If there is a dispute over the ownership, etc. of the property to be used by the third party between the third party and the third party, this is not only a dispute over the property to be used under Article 1008-3 of the Civil Act among co-inheritors, but also about the general property-related dispute. Thus, the third party as the third party should not seek a confirmation of the status as the third party under Article 108-3 of the Civil Act, but also a direct claim for performance or legal relationship verification against the third party. Thus, even if there is a dispute over the property to be used by the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff and the third party, the plaintiff and the third party, even if there is no direct or unstable legal status against the defendant, it cannot be claimed as the plaintiff's claim for performance or legal status.

Thus, although the lawsuit of this case should have been dismissed by illegality, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest of confirmation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds. Since this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly decide, the judgment of the court of first instance, which is erroneous as above, is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)