1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the confirmation of invalidity of the judgment added by this court and the claim for ownership confirmation shall be dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as follows. The court added the content No. 2 of the second week of the judgment of the court of first instance to "2." On July 17, 2009, the ground for this part is as follows: G forest land of 6,336 square meters (which is divided into K and L), and on February 20, 2014, G forest of 498 square meters (which is divided into M or N, 5,838 square meters, 5,838 square meters) to "................" The second week "this case's settlement" was added to "..................." the part of the judgment of the court of first instance to "the movable of this case" as "the movable of this case" is written as "the movable property in the list of stored goods," and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance to 2018 square meters.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. As to the Plaintiff’s confirmation of invalidity of the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit and the claim for confirmation of ownership of each of the instant movables, the Defendant Union asserted that the said claim is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff sought confirmation of invalidity of a final and conclusive judgment, not a party to the instant lawsuit, or sought confirmation of ownership of a non-existent building

B. In order to file a lawsuit for confirmation, the interest in confirmation must be the interests of confirmation. The interest in confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger, apprehensions, and risks (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). Notwithstanding the fact that a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought, barring any special circumstance, to bring a lawsuit for confirmation does not lose the effect of elimination of apprehensions, and there is no benefit in confirmation contrary to the litigation economy.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da1264 delivered on October 11, 1991). The Plaintiff’s confirmation is in light of the above legal principles.