(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.01.13 2016누55805

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) 서울고등법원 2017.01.13 2016누55805

공영주차장위탁계약효력존재확인 등

Text

1. To dismiss the instant lawsuit that has been changed in exchange at the trial;

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

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The legal nature of the instant lawsuit

A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant parking lot was substantially operated until the expiration of the period of entrustment, and as the present period of entrustment expires, there is no benefit in confirmation of the instant lawsuit seeking that the validity of the period of entrustment remains valid. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s possession of the part concerning the second year of the instant contract is illegal and that the Plaintiff’s possession of the Plaintiff is proceeding in a lawsuit on the premise that it is illegal, there is benefit to confirm that the validity of the instant contract still exists the period of entrustment.

B. Although a lawsuit for confirmation of judgment is permitted to eliminate risks or apprehensions in relation to the current rights or legal status, in cases where the current rights or legal status has been affected even in the past legal relations, and it is deemed that obtaining a judgment for confirmation of the legal relations is a valid and appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions in the present rights or legal status, there is benefit in confirmation.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the legal status of the Plaintiff, and the risk or apprehension regarding the legal status of the Plaintiff regarding the instant contract may be resolved through a lawsuit for damages with the Defendant, and the instant lawsuit cannot be seen as an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s risk or apprehension.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is inappropriate as there is no benefit of confirmation, and thus, it is so ordered as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 10. 14. 선고 2010다36407 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.09.12 2017나1603

-광주지방법원 2017.09.28 2017구합11251

-서울고등법원 2016.05.26 2016나44

-대법원 2010. 10. 14. 선고 2010다36407 판결

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.12.17 2018누918