[1] In a case where a lawsuit seeking confirmation on a legal relationship between one of the parties to the lawsuit and a third party or between a third party is recognized as a benefit of confirmation

[2] Whether a member of the redevelopment cooperative established under Article 22 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act may intervene in the transaction relationship with a corporate redevelopment cooperative in person or by subrogation of the redevelopment cooperative and the third party and claim the invalidity of the contract concluded by the representative institution of the cooperative, or seek the invalidity of the contract at the individual's qualification (negative)

[1] A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the parties, but can be subject to the legal relationship between one of the parties and a third party or between third parties. However, in order to have the interest to confirm the legal relationship, the legal relationship must cause any danger or loss existing in the claimant's rights or legal status according to the legal relationship, and in order to remove the danger or loss, it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship by the confirmation judgment aimed at confirming the legal relationship, and it should be the most effective and appropriate means.

[2] A member of a redevelopment association established under Article 22 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents of July 1, 2003) shall have an interest in the operation of the association. However, this is merely a general and factual matter, not a specific legal interest. Thus, it cannot be said that a member may intervene in a transaction relationship with a corporate redevelopment association in person or by subrogation of the redevelopment association with a third party and can not assert the invalidity of the contract that the representative agency of the association entered into. In addition, it shall not be deemed as a valid and appropriate means in resolving the dispute.

[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 22 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Act No. 6852 of Dec. 30, 2002), Article 2

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da26131 delivered on October 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3739), Supreme Court Decision 94Da10238 delivered on June 14, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 2002Da20353 Delivered on August 20, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1566)

Plaintiff

Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Song Ho-sop et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na25668 delivered on January 11, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the parties, but can also be the subject of the legal relationship between one of the parties and a third party or between third parties. However, in order to have the interest of confirmation of such legal relationship, there should be a danger or omission that exists in the rights or legal status of the complainant pursuant to such legal relationship, and in order to remove such danger or omission, it is necessary to immediately be confirmed by a confirmation judgment aimed at confirmation of such legal relationship, and it should be the most effective and appropriate means (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da10238, Jun. 14, 1996; 2002Da20353, Aug. 20, 2004, etc.).

On the other hand, Article 22 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents of July 1, 2003) provides that members of a redevelopment cooperative established pursuant to Article 22 of the same Act shall have an interest in the operation of the cooperative. However, this is merely a general and factual matter, and it shall not be deemed that they have a specific legal interest. Therefore, in lieu of a cooperative member's direct or in subrogation of the redevelopment cooperative, it is impossible to assert the invalidity of a contract concluded by the representative agency of the cooperative by participating in transaction with a third party, and it shall not be considered as a valid and appropriate means in resolving the dispute.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the lawsuit of this case against the defendant company, which the plaintiff who is a member of the committee, seeking confirmation of invalidity of the conclusion mediation of this case, is unlawful as there is no interest in confirmation, is just, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)