The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s assertion emphasized by filing an appeal is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination under paragraph (3); and (b) such assertion is cited as including summary language pursuant to the main sentence of

(The grounds for appeal by the defendant are not significantly different from the allegations in the judgment of the court of first instance, and fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate).

A. Unless the consent of the non-party Korea Land and Housing Corporation to the sales contract of this case is void as a matter of course, the plaintiff cannot exercise the right to sell this case through the lawsuit for confirmation of this case, and there is no interest in confirmation.

B. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case to cause pain and damage to the defendant without any benefit, and it is not permissible as an abuse of right against the principle of good faith.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation against a defense prior to the merits, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate the Plaintiff’s present apprehension, danger, and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.

In addition, the other party to a lawsuit seeking confirmation may cause uneasy in the legal status of the Plaintiff by dispute over the Plaintiff’s rights or legal relations, and in other words, he/she shall be a person who asserts conflicting interests that conflict with the legal interests of the Plaintiff and, if so, has the benefit of confirmation against such Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). In light of the above legal principles, the above circumstance alleged by the Defendant is the ownership of the land of this case through the lawsuit of this case.