1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on the Korea Land and Housing Corporation of this Court, it is recognized that the house owned by the Defendant was included in the business area of Pyeongtaek-si D development project implemented by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Corporation”), and that the Defendant was selected as a person eligible for supply of the migrants’ housing site and entered into a sales contract on May 10, 2016 with regard to the zone of migrants E (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as a confirmation judgment to eliminate such apprehensions and risks when the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous.

Therefore, in spite of the possibility of filing a lawsuit claiming performance, the filing of a lawsuit for confirmation is not a final solution of the dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da82439, Mar. 26, 2004).

The Plaintiff sought confirmation from the Defendant that the right of sale was transferred to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the right of sale of housing sites under the instant sales contract.

However, in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s filing of a suit against the Defendant for performance seeking a change in the name of the buyer immediately becomes an effective and appropriate means to resolve the Plaintiff’s right or status unstable, and the seeking confirmation of the transfer of the right to parcel out against the Defendant is rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant, it cannot immediately enforce the implementation of the procedure for change in the name of the buyer directly to the Defendant or the Corporation, and thus, cannot be a valid and appropriate means for the final settlement of the dispute.

In addition, whether a contract for the transfer of the right of sale between the plaintiff and the defendant has been concluded even if the claim for the transfer of the name of the buyer was made against the defendant.