beta
Text
1. The action against the plaintiff by the independent party intervenor added in the trial shall be dismissed;
2. The defendant's principal lawsuit
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the Plaintiff’s claim is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of “No. 4(1) of the judgment of the court of first instance” to “No. 4(2).” Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the Intervenor’s claim
A. We examine whether the intervenor's lawsuit against the plaintiff is legitimate ex officio. We examine whether the intervenor's lawsuit against the plaintiff is legitimate.
The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is unclear between the parties, and the relationship is immediately established, and there is a benefit of confirmation in the event that the plaintiff's rights or legal status may be removed from existing danger or unstable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da636, Jun. 8, 1982). Thus, the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is not the ultimate solution of a dispute, and therefore there is no benefit of confirmation.
(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da4089 delivered on November 22, 1994, and Supreme Court Decision 95Da5622 delivered on December 22, 1995, etc.). With respect to the instant case, a public health unit and an intervenor, by filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant building, may obtain a judgment on the premise of the same issues as the instant case, and may resolve the instant dispute more thoroughly. However, the Intervenor simply sought confirmation of ownership in the instant case.
Therefore, the Intervenor’s lawsuit is unlawful because there is no benefit in confirmation, regardless of the legitimacy of the assertion (whether the Intervenor is the owner of the building of this case between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff).
B. The Intervenor filed a claim against the Defendant by the Intervenor, on condition that the Intervenor subrogated to the 1st intervenor’s claim against F’s debt KRW 70,000,000,000 on behalf of the Fisheries Cooperatives, the Plaintiff registered the ownership transfer of the instant building under title trust to the Defendant.