The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant C Housing Association.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If a lawsuit for future performance of a claim or conditional claim that may arise in the future is lawful as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the legal and factual relationship, which serves as the basis of the occurrence of the claim, should exist at the time of the closing of argument, and such status should be anticipated to continue,

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4902, 4919 delivered on November 11, 1997). In this context, the term “in a case where a prior claim is required” refers to a case where a debtor cannot expect voluntary performance when the due date comes or the condition is fulfilled, due to the debtor’s dispute over the existence of an obligation from the date of the due date or the existence of an obligation is not due to the non-performance

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da3891 Decided January 15, 2004, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff may be aware of the fact that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant C Housing Association (hereinafter “Defendant C Housing Association”) the claim for the instant settlement amount from the Defendant B. Thus, barring any special circumstance, there exists a legal factual relationship that serves as the basis for the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant settlement amount against the Defendant Union, and such a situation may continue, barring special circumstances.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the Defendant Union is disputing the existence of the obligation of the instant settlement amount against the Plaintiff, such as claiming that the Defendant Union repaid the instant settlement amount to Defendant B, even if the assignment of the obligation regarding the instant settlement amount is notified to the Defendant Union, it cannot expect the Defendant Union to voluntarily perform the obligation. As such, the Plaintiff need to claim prior payment of the instant settlement amount on the condition that the assignment of obligation regarding the instant settlement amount is notified to the Defendant Union.

The judgment of the court below that rejected the principal defense of the defendant union by deeming the plaintiff's primary action against the defendant union as lawful is just, and there is a judgment below.