logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.05.14 2014나104696
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The part of the claim for confirmation of the invalidity of the sales contract among the lawsuits of this case, which were changed in exchange at the trial, shall be dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine the legitimacy of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of a sales contract among the instant lawsuit, ex officio, as to whether the claim for confirmation of invalidity of a sales contract is lawful.

In a case where one’s own right or legal status is a threat or interfered with by being denied by or against another person, the other party shall be required to verify his/her own right or legal status against the other party. The other party who denies his/her own right or legal status claims the rights or legal relations against a third party that cannot be compatible with his/her own claim and seek confirmation of the existence of the other party’s right or legal relation against the third party, which is the absence of such rights or legal relationship against the other party. Even if a judgment is rendered in favor of the other party in the lawsuit of confirmation, the judgment does not confirm his/her own right to the other party, but does not affect the third party, and thus, the lawsuit of confirmation of non-existence cannot serve as a valid and adequate means to resolve risks existing in his/her own right

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da26131, Oct. 12, 1995; 2010Da54535, Jun. 28, 2012). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if the pertinent contract is confirmed as invalid, the Plaintiff’s land sales contract between the Defendant B and G is not confirmed as invalid due to its judgment, and thus, the above confirmation cannot be a valid and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status’s apprehension.

arrow