beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the ground of appeal disputing the legitimacy of the lawsuit for interim confirmation
A. Article 264(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When a judgment is based on whether the legal relationship at issue is established during the process of a lawsuit, the parties may file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of such legal relationship separately.”
Therefore, in a case where there is a dispute between the parties as to the existence of a legal relationship which is in a prior relationship with respect to the judgment of the original claim during the proceeding, the said legal procedure may be combined with one another to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the said legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu554,555, Jun. 26, 1984; 2007Da178, 2007Dada314, Dec. 11, 2008). Here, the legal relationship in a prior relation includes not only the cause of the claim but also the defense relation.
B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, it is erroneous for the court below to have determined that the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation is unlawful on the ground that (1) the defendant (the plaintiff for intermediate confirmation; hereinafter "the defendant") is liable to pay capital gains tax, local income tax, etc. imposed on the defendants due to the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff A, and (2) the court below erred in holding that the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation is unlawful on the ground that the matter is the content of the defendants' defense of simultaneous performance in the claim of this case. However, on the other hand, the existence of the obligation of payment of the plaintiff's capital gains tax, etc. seeking confirmation cannot be argued by the plaintiff, and the defendants do not seek confirmation by specifying the amount of the above capital gains tax, etc., and therefore, the defendants