Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Confirmation interest where a performance action lies, and a definite judgment order
Supreme Court, Mar. 9, 2006, 2005Da60239 (judgment)
Case name: 주차권존재확인
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a plaintiff who could sue for an order prohibiting interference with entry, passage and parking in an apartment complex also sued for confirmation of the right to do so, does the confirmation action have confirmation interest, must the court assess that interest ex officio, and was the order limiting parking to 06:00 to 22:00 absent special circumstances definite enough?
Holding
It did not. A confirmation action lies only where a declaratory judgment is the most effective and appropriate means of removing the anxiety and risk to the plaintiff's legal position, so where an action for performance can be brought, the confirmation action does not settle the dispute finally and lacks confirmation interest; that interest is examined by the court ex officio regardless of the parties' pleadings. The parking right rested on the land use right exercised by subrogation and, absent special circumstances such as a separate set of rules, was not confined to particular hours; an admission that parking was not needed between 06:00 and 22:00 did not forfeit the right to park then. The order limiting the parking to 06:00 to 22:00 absent special circumstances lacked the clarity required of a judgment order, because it neither specified what those special circumstances were nor made clear whether parking begun before 22:00 could continue past it.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
확인의 소는 원고의 법적 지위가 불안·위험할 때에 그 불안·위험을 제거함에 확인판결로 판단하는 것이 가장 유효·적절한 수단인 경우에 인정되므로, 이행을 청구하는 소를 제기할 수 있는데도 불구하고, 확인의 소를 제기하는 것은 분쟁의 종국적인 해결 방법이 아니어서 확인의 이익이 없다.
Unofficial English translation
A declaratory action is recognized where the plaintiff's legal position is unstable or at risk and a declaratory judgment is the most effective and appropriate means of removing such instability or risk; therefore, even where an action seeking performance may be filed, filing a declaratory action is not a method for the ultimate resolution of the dispute, and accordingly there is no interest in confirmation.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 주차방해금지청구에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 그 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the claim for injunction against parking interference is reversed, and the case in that part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
판결의 주문은 명확하여야 하며 주문 자체로서 내용이 특정될 수 있어야 하므로, 주문은 어떠한 범위에서 당사자의 청구를 인용하고 배척한 것인가를 그 이유와 대조하여 짐작할 수 있을 정도로 표시되고 집행에 의문이 없을 정도로 이를 명확히 특정하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The dispositive part of a judgment must be clear and its content must be capable of being specified by the dispositive part itself; accordingly, the dispositive part must be stated in such a manner that the scope in which the parties' claims have been granted and rejected can be ascertained by comparing it with the reasons therefor, and must specify it with such clarity as to leave no doubt in enforcement.
Factors
- 이행을 청구하는 소를 제기할 수 있는데도 불구하고, 확인의 소를 제기하는 것은 분쟁의 종국적인 해결 방법이 아니어서 확인의 이익이 없다
- 확인의 소에 있어서 확인의 이익의 유무는 직권조사사항이므로 당사자의 주장 여부에 관계없이 법원이 직권으로 판단하여야 한다
- 판결의 주문은 명확하여야 하며 주문 자체로서 내용이 특정될 수 있어야 하므로
- 대지사용권에 대한 법리를 오해하고 판결주문으로서 갖추어야 할 명확성을 갖추지 못하였음을 이유로 파기한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• Even where an action seeking performance may be filed, filing a declaratory action is not a method for the ultimate resolution of the dispute, and accordingly there is no interest in confirmation
• In a declaratory action, the presence or absence of an interest in confirmation is a matter to be investigated ex officio, and the court must determine it ex officio regardless of whether the parties raise the issue
• The dispositive part of a judgment must be clear and its content must be capable of being specified by the dispositive part itself, and therefore
• A case in which the judgment of the court below was reversed on the ground that it had misunderstood the legal principle concerning the land use right and lacked the clarity required of a dispositive part
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1994. 11. 22. 선고 93다40089 판결(공1995상, 57)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089 decided November 22, 1994 (Gong 1995 Sang, 57)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1991. 10. 11. 선고 91다1264 판결(공1991, 2695), 대법원 1994. 11. 22. 선고 93다40089 판결(공1995상, 57), 대법원 1995. 12. 22. 선고 95다5622 판결(공1996상, 489), 대법원 2001. 12. 24. 선고 2001다30469 판결(공2002상, 341), 대법원 2004. 3. 26. 선고 2001다82439 판결, 대법원 2005. 7. 14. 선고 2004다36215 판결 / [2] 대법원 1991. 7. 12. 선고 91다12905 판결(공1991하, 2156), 대법원 1991. 8. 13. 선고 91다5433 판결(공1991하, 2334) / [3] 대법원 1995. 6. 30. 선고 94다55118 판결(공1995하, 2561)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Would an order that defines the special circumstances but leaves unclear whether parking begun before 22:00 may continue after it be definite enough if the court's reasoning did not treat that uncertainty as an independent defect?
The Seoul High Court's judgment on remand, once it re-hears the interference-prohibition claim, will show how the parking right and the order are to be expressed. Any later decision on the clarity required of a judgment order under Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act, or an amendment to that Article or to Article 202, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Would an order that defines the special circumstances but leaves unclear whether parking begun before 22:00 may continue after it be definite enough if the court's reasoning did not treat that uncertainty as an independent defect?” vs Independent “What specifically defined parking restrictions, if any, would be compatible with the right to use the site and sufficiently clear for enforcement?”
The primary asks whether the order would be sufficiently definite if the court did not treat its uncertainty as an independent defect, while the independent asks what parking restriction would be valid and clear.
확인의 소는 원고의 법적 지위가 불안·위험할 때에 그 불안·위험을 제거함에 확인판결로 판단하는 것이 가장 유효·적절한 수단인 경우에 인정되므로, 이행을 청구하는 소를 제기할 수 있는데도 불구하고, 확인의 소를 제기하는 것은 분쟁의 종국적인 해결 방법이 아니어서 확인의 이익이 없다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 6 September 2005 (2004Na67129), dismissed as inadmissible the claim seeking confirmation that the plaintiff's cars could enter, pass through and park in the apartment complex, because the plaintiff separately sought an order prohibiting interference with the same entry, passage and parking, so the performance claim achieved that object directly. On the interference claim it held that the defendant must not hinder parking by the cars used for commuting to the plaintiff's office and by visitors' cars, except freight vehicles used in its business, but limited the prohibition to 06:00 to 22:00, taking the plaintiff's own statement that parking was needed only in those hours absent special circumstances.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in dismissing the confirmation claim and rejected the argument that the court below should have pressed for an amendment of the claim. It held that the parking right belonged to the land use right exercised by subrogation and so, absent special circumstances such as a separate set of rules, could not be confined to particular hours; the admission went to need, not to right, and the risk of hindrance persisted. The order left the defendant's duty during 06:00 to 22:00 entirely to whether special circumstances existed without defining them, and left unclear whether parking begun before 22:00 could continue past it, so the scope of what was granted and refused could not be ascertained from the order itself and room for dispute and doubt in enforcement remained. That part was reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court, the plaintiff's remaining appeal was dismissed, and the judgment was given by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which a separate set of rules or other special circumstances restricts night or particular-hour parking, since the Court confined its holding to the absence of any such circumstances.
- A case in which the right to park does not rest on a land use right exercised by subrogation.
- An order that defines the special circumstances in the order itself, so that the obligor knows when hindering parking breaches the prohibition.
Record verification notes
Set the confirmation claim against any performance claim covering the same relief, since an available performance action defeats confirmation interest and the court must examine that interest on its own motion, whether or not the defendant pleads it. Then establish whether the parking right rests on a land use right by subrogation or a separate set of rules, and read the order alone: does it show what special circumstances mean, and whether parking begun before 22:00 may continue after it.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 이행의 소를 제기할 수 있는데도 확인의 소를 제기한 경우, ‘확인의 이익’이 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 확인의 이익의 유무와 법원의 직권 판단 [3] 판결 주문의 특정 정도 [4] 아파트입주자대표회의를 상대로 아파트 단지 내로의 출입, 통행 및 주차의 방해금지를 구한 사안에서, 그 방해금지청구를 인용하면서 주차시간을 ‘특별한 사정이 없는 한 06:00부터 22:00까지’로 한정한 원심판결을, 대지사용권에 대한 법리를 오해하고 판결주문으로서 갖추어야 할 명확성을 갖추지 못하였음을 이유로 파기한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether there is an 'interest in confirmation' where an action seeking performance may be filed but a declaratory action is instead filed (negative) [2] The presence or absence of an interest in confirmation and the court's determination ex officio [3] The degree of specificity required of a dispositive part [4] In a case where the plaintiff sought, against the Apartment Residents' Representative Meeting, an injunction against interference with entry into, passage through and parking within the apartment complex, a case in which the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below, which, while granting the claim for injunction against interference, limited the parking hours to 'from 06:00 to 22:00 unless there are special circumstances', on the ground that it had misunderstood the legal principle concerning the land use right and lacked the clarity required of a dispositive part
Summary of the holding
[1] 확인의 소는 원고의 법적 지위가 불안·위험할 때에 그 불안·위험을 제거함에 확인판결로 판단하는 것이 가장 유효·적절한 수단인 경우에 인정되므로, 이행을 청구하는 소를 제기할 수 있는데도 불구하고, 확인의 소를 제기하는 것은 분쟁의 종국적인 해결 방법이 아니어서 확인의 이익이 없다. [2] 확인의 소에 있어서 확인의 이익의 유무는 직권조사사항이므로 당사자의 주장 여부에 관계없이 법원이 직권으로 판단하여야 한다. [3] 판결의 주문은 명확하여야 하며 주문 자체로서 내용이 특정될 수 있어야 하므로, 주문은 어떠한 범위에서 당사자의 청구를 인용하고 배척한 것인가를 그 이유와 대조하여 짐작할 수 있을 정도로 표시되고 집행에 의문이 없을 정도로 이를 명확히 특정하여야 한다. [4] 아파트입주자대표회의를 상대로 아파트 단지 내로의 출입, 통행 및 주차의 방해금지를 구한 사안에서, 그 방해금지청구를 인용하면서 주차시간을 ‘특별한 사정이 없는 한 06:00부터 22:00까지’로 한정한 원심판결을, 대지사용권에 대한 법리를 오해하고 판결주문으로서 갖추어야 할 명확성을 갖추지 못하였음을 이유로 파기한 사례.
Order
원심판결 중 주차방해금지청구에 관한 부분을 파기하고, 그 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 원고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the claim for injunction against parking interference is reversed, and the case in that part is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The plaintiff's remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제250조 / [2] 민사소송법 제134조, 제292조 / [3] 민사소송법 제208조 / [4] 민사소송법 제202조, 제208조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger