1. Of the part of the main claim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall attach the respective share ratio of 1/2.

1. The reason why this Court has used this part of the basic facts is as follows: “B. The Defendant newly constructed the steel-frame structure 164.64m2 on the land indicated in the attached list of the first instance court’s judgment “(b) the building to provide funeral and charnel service for pet animals, 164.64m2 on the ground indicated in the attached list, and the registration of the preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed on October 21, 2003, and the building was extended (it is 4 buildings listed in the attached list) later.” The corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment (“this court” in the third 6m2 of the first instance judgment as “court of the first instance” is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment (the second 10 to 37m2 of the second 10 to the third 7m2 of the judgment). Thus, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the main claim

A. The reasoning for the court’s use of this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) pursuant to the instant trade agreement, “No. 4 of the first instance court’s decision No. 1” is the same as the entry of “No. 10 to No. 43 of the third court’s decision No. 10 pursuant to the instant trade agreement; and (b) pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Plaintiff and the Defendant cited this part of the claim. (b) It is acknowledged that the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the lawfulness of the part of the claim seeking “the confirmation that the Plaintiff and the Defendant combined the site and the building of the instant funeral hall in proportion to shares 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s legal status is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as the confirmation judgment in removing such apprehension and danger when the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous.

Therefore, even though it is possible to file a lawsuit claiming implementation, the filing of a lawsuit for confirmation is not a final solution of the dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 95Da5622, Dec. 22, 1995). Meanwhile, the existence of benefit in confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is the existence of benefit in confirmation.