1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant when the defendant is exposed to the danger of existing in the plaintiff's rights or legal status and removing the apprehensions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 1991; 91Da14420, Apr. 26, 1996). In a case where a dispute arises as to the existence of a director or representative director's status, the court may remove the risks or apprehensions of the plaintiff's rights or legal status against the social welfare foundation by obtaining a judgment on the existence of a director or representative director's status against the social welfare foundation. The judgment of confirmation against the individual such as director or representative director cannot be deemed as effective and appropriate means to remove the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da1405656, Apr. 296, etc.).

3. If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, it shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices to revoke the lawsuit of this case and dismiss the lawsuit of this case.