(a) Claim for the confirmation of the existence of performance obligations when it is possible to demand performance, and whether a claim for confirmation is made against a person who is not a direct dispute;

B. The obligee's right of revocation is exercised to preserve the claim for ownership transfer registration of a specific object (negative)

A. A lawsuit for confirmation is allowed where there is a benefit to immediately confirm the current rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute. Thus, separate claim for confirmation of the existence of performance obligation cannot be a valid and appropriate means in light of the litigation economy since it has no particular effectiveness in removing anxiety, and thus, it is not allowed as there is no benefit of confirmation, barring special circumstances, to seek confirmation against a person who is not a party to a direct dispute, and it is unlawful as there is no benefit of seeking confirmation as there is no benefit of law to seek confirmation.

(b) The obligee’s right of revocation may not be exercised to preserve the claim for ownership transfer registration of a specific object.

A. Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 406 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 64Da82 delivered on July 14, 1964, 64Da1957 delivered on March 23, 1965, 80Da16,17 delivered on March 25, 1980 (Gong1980, 12740). Supreme Court Decision 68Da2022 delivered on January 28, 1969 (No 117, 174 delivered on July 26, 198) (Gong1988, 584 delivered on February 23, 198)

A certified, Domination, First Class of Saccination of Mining Gimchis

Defendant 1 and 8 Defendants et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na32799 delivered on December 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A lawsuit for confirmation shall be permitted where there is a benefit to immediately confirm the current rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute, and it is not permissible to seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation separately in the case of a claim for performance because it cannot be a valid and appropriate means in light of the litigation economy since it has no particular effectiveness in removing anxiety, and it is not allowed to gain a benefit of confirmation, barring special circumstances, to seek confirmation against a person who is not a party to a direct dispute, and it is not effective in eliminating the apprehension of legal status. Therefore, there is no benefit to seek confirmation

Based on the above purport, the court below's decision that dismissed the part concerning the lawsuit for confirmation among the lawsuits in this case is just, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of legal principles, or violation of the precedents on party members, which are pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. The precedents cited by the parties in this case are neither reasonable nor appropriate. All arguments are groundless.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below held on April 23, 1984 that since the plaintiff was owned by the non-party, which was originally owned by the non-party, the real estate in this case was purchased by the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (hereinafter "five including the defendant 1") and paid the purchase price in full, and was received documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership, the sale of the real estate in this case through the defendant 6 was made to the plaintiff through the defendant 6 for convenience, while five including the defendant 1, etc. sold the real estate in this case to the plaintiff through the defendant 6, it was hard to recognize that the contract was made in accordance with the plaintiff's disposal of the real estate in this case by delegation of the right to dispose of the real estate in this case by five including the defendant 1, and it was hard to recognize that the plaintiff, etc., including the defendant 1, had the obligation to purchase and sell the real estate in this case to the plaintiff.

In comparison with the records, the above fact-finding is justified, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or evidence preparation pointing out by the theory of lawsuit.

If the facts are as above, five persons, including Defendant 1, cannot be obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate of this case against the plaintiff, and therefore, in this case where it is apparent in its record that the plaintiff did not make a claim by subrogation of Defendant 6, the plaintiff does not have any claim against Defendant 1, etc., and even if he sold the real estate of this case to Defendant 7, Defendant 8, and Defendant 9, etc. (hereinafter the "Defendant 7 et al."), the court below did not have any error in its decision that the double selling is not established in relation to the plaintiff, and that the right of revocation cannot be exercised in order to preserve the right of ownership transfer of a specific material.

In addition, insofar as it is evident that the Plaintiff did not acquire any right against Defendant 1 and five others, the lower court does not need to deliberate and decide on whether the trade between Defendant 1 and Defendant 7 and three others is contrary to social order or whether the relevant evidence is contrary to social order. Therefore, the allegation of omission of judgment on the lawsuit is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)