1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate such apprehensions and risks (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). In addition, a lawsuit for confirmation of a past legal relationship affects the current rights or legal status, and a lawsuit for confirmation of a previous legal relationship is deemed valid and appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions to the current rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013).

(2) The Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate solely by means of an agreement among heirs, upon the death of October 13, 2006, following the agreement among heirs, in light of the following: (a) the Defendants entered into a sales contract with KRW 1.2 billion for the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B on July 26, 2006 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); (b) the Defendants paid the down payment amount of KRW 200 million to B; (c) the remainder amount of KRW 1 billion is paid as “60 days from the date of business approval; and (d) the Defendants did not pay the remainder amount until the filing of the instant lawsuit; and (e) the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate solely by means of an agreement among heirs, upon the death of October 13, 2006.

In addition, the instant lawsuit sought confirmation as to whether there was no obligation owed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants on the premise that the instant contract was rescinded due to the Defendants’ fault.

However, prior to the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendants were on July 2016.