existence of interest in confirmation

Even if the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of representative authority against Defendant 1, even if the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, the Defendant Union may assert against the Plaintiff and Defendant 1’s association the legal relationship contrary to the above final and conclusive judgment. As such, the legal dispute as to whether Defendant 1 has the power of representation as the president of the Defendant Union cannot be a fundamental resolution through the above lawsuit unless the Defendant Union is a party, and thus, it cannot be a valid and appropriate measure to eliminate the risk or apprehension of the Plaintiff’s legal status

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

64Da1957 delivered on March 23, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1837 delivered on March 23, 1965; Supreme Court Decision 228(19)926 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court (76 Gohap554)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant 1 is dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Defendant 1 confirms that there is no representative authority of Defendant 2.

As of December 10, 1975, the defendant 2 dismissed the defendant 1 on November 19, 1973 at the same court 73 Gohap1678 of the same year, which was cancelled on the ground of the judgment of nullification of the interim board of representatives of the same court as Busan District Court on June 8, 1975. The defendant 2 dismissed the defendant 1 of the partnership president on November 23, 1973. On the same day, the plaintiff 2 will perform the procedure of registration of recovery of the registration 134 "Seo-dong, Seo-dong

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

First, we examine the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s instant confirmation lawsuit against Defendant 1.

The plaintiff's attorney, as the cause of the claim in this case, was the head of the defendant 2 (hereinafter simply referred to as the defendant union) but was dismissed on November 19, 1973, and was registered to that effect on November 23, 1973, and the plaintiff was appointed as a new president of the defendant union and was registered to that effect on the 23th of the same month. The above change of the president of the association was unfairly cancelled on November 10, 1975, and the defendant 1 was registered again as the head of the defendant association, and thus, he exercises his power of representation as the head of the defendant association. Thus, he asserts that he raised against the defendant 1 the confirmation that

However, even if the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against Defendant 1 becomes final and conclusive in the instant confirmation lawsuit against the Plaintiff, the Defendant Union against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant 1 may assert legal relations against the Defendant Union against the above final and conclusive judgment. As such, the legal disputes over whether Defendant 1 has the power of representation as the president of the Defendant Union cannot be fundamentally resolved by the said lawsuit without becoming a party to the Defendant Union.

Therefore, the instant litigation seeking confirmation is not effective and appropriate to eliminate risks and apprehensions with respect to the legal status of the Plaintiff, and thus, it is difficult to avoid dismissal.

Next, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant union was established on September 2, 1966 by the defendant union; the head of the defendant union was dismissed on November 19, 1973; the plaintiff was registered on November 23, 1973 by a resolution of the provisional council of the defendant union that appointed the head of the defendant union as the head of the new union; the defendant 1 dismissed by the above resolution against the plaintiff union, filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff and the defendant union seeking confirmation of invalidity of the provisional council of the Busan District Court 73 Ma1678, Busan District Court 74Na553, and won all the first and second trials, but the appeal was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court against the second instance court of this case; the case was remanded and remanded again to the Daegu High Court 75Na949 on December 3, 1975; the defendant 1 withdrawn the above lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant union as the principal of the provisional council of the defendant union on December 15, 1975.

However, as long as the lawsuit seeking nullification of the above provisional council instituted by Defendant 1 against the plaintiff and the defendant association becomes a co-defendant of the plaintiff and the defendant association, the judgment falls under a similar necessary co-litigation that should be confirmed jointly with each party, so even if only the plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the Daegu High Court 74Na553 which is the second instance of this case, the appeal shall be deemed to have an effect on other co-defendants who are in a necessary co-litigation relation. Therefore, the above judgment between the defendant 1 and the defendant association shall be deemed to have an effect on other co-defendants who are in a necessary co-litigation relation. Thus, regardless of the plaintiff's filing of the plaintiff's appeal, regardless of the plaintiff's filing of the plaintiff's appeal, the above judgment was revoked as the plaintiff's filing of a final appeal, and thus, it is unfair that the plaintiff'

However, the judgment on the lawsuit seeking nullification of the above board of representatives against the defendant association, which is a juristic person, is not only the above partnership that became the defendant, but also the so-called large-scale partnership that has the effect of the judgment against the third party. Therefore, in the above lawsuit, the person who is to be the defendant is the defendant association and the plaintiff who is appointed as the president of the partnership by the resolution is not the defendant association, and even if the above lawsuit was brought in by the defendant 1, the plaintiff is joint defendant as well as the defendant association, and even if the lawsuit was brought in as is, the plaintiff is not the defendant association, the above lawsuit shall not be deemed to constitute a similar co-litigation, unless the plaintiff is originally the defendant qualification of the above lawsuit. Therefore, the decision of the Daegu High Court

If so, the plaintiff's claim is groundless on the premise that the judgment of the problem has not become final and conclusive.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of confirmation against the defendant 1 is unlawful and dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's association is without merit. Thus, the original judgment is unfair by different conclusions. Thus, this judgment is revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)