(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.01.22 2019가단10720

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.01.22 2019가단10720

기타

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. As to the lawsuit in this case that the plaintiff confirmed that there was no fact that the contract was entered into between the defendant, C and D, and that there was no fact that the contract was entered into with the defendant, the defendant asserts that there was no legal interest that the plaintiff, not the party to the contract, has no legal interest in dispute over the truth of the contract.

Therefore, a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought in order to determine whether a document verifying the legal relationship is authentic (Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act). The lawsuit for confirmation of authenticity of a deed is a lawsuit to determine whether a document was forged or altered unless it was prepared by the person who prepared the document, and the independent lawsuit is allowed for confirmation of the fact that a document verifying the legal relationship becomes final and conclusive by a judgment, that the authenticity of a document verifying the legal relationship is likely to be resolved by the dispute itself or at least to contribute to the resolution of the dispute.

Therefore, even if the truth of a document seeking confirmation has been determined by a lawsuit, it cannot be eliminated that the legal relationship or legal status to be proved by the document, and there is no benefit of confirmation in the case where it is necessary to seek confirmation from the relevant rights or legal status itself in order to eliminate the legal inconsistency.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da15317 delivered on December 10, 1991, etc.). The Plaintiff asserts that the instant lawsuit purported to confirm the Defendant, the owner of the building, as the owner of the building, whether the lease contract was authentic in order to specify who is the owner of the marina business who is the subject of claim for damages. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lawsuit is a case where the benefit to be confirmed is recognized by a lawsuit.

2. If so, the instant lawsuit is instituted.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제250조

참조판례

-대법원 1991. 12. 10. 선고 91다15317 판결

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.01.22 2019가단10720

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.09 2019가단5307327

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2016.05.24 2016가단68

-서울남부지방법원 2019.11.19.선고 2019가단6052 판결