beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's main claim shall be dismissed.
3.In addition, a new trial shall be added.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The Plaintiff, which is the primary cause of the determination on the primary claim, asserts that the Defendant adopted the method of compulsory transmission for the promotion of the instant project, and that the Defendant had expressed his intent to bear the cost of maintenance and management of the instant substitute facility. The Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the Defendant is the subject of the cost of maintenance and management of the instant substitute facility under the instant agreement.
In light of the interest in the confirmation of this case, the lawsuit for confirmation shall be permitted where there is a benefit to immediately settle the dispute between the parties to the dispute as to the present rights or legal relations, and it is unlawful as there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of the performance obligation, as there is no particular effectiveness in removing anxiety and it cannot be a valid and appropriate means in light of the litigation economy.
(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to recognize 367,661,00 won, which is the average of the remaining amounts after deducting the existing acquisition cost, from the appraisal of the expenses incurred in the maintenance of the substitute facility of this case, as the expenses for the maintenance and management of the substitute facility of this case, on July 23, 1991, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to recognize 367,661,00 won, which is the average of the expenses incurred in the maintenance and management of the substitute facility of this case, as the expenses for the maintenance and management of the substitute facility of this case were actually incurred in the year 2012, 2013, and the same amount was anticipated to have been incurred each year, and the maintenance and management expenses for the substitute facility of this case are anticipated to have been incurred each year, and as of the date of closing argument of this case