제3자 확인의 소의 재고- 채권의 귀속에 관한 소송을 중심으로 -

The majority theory and precedent are that the subject of a declaratory remedy is not necessarily limited to the legal relationship between the parties, and as long as the plaintiff has an immediate interest of confirmation, it is okay to have a legal relationship between one party and a third party or a third party. However, in recent years, in Germany and Japan, the view that what was previously considered to be confirmation of a third party's legal relationship is actually about the plaintiff's inherent rights or legal status, or that a third party declaratory action is improper in light of the function and purpose of a declaratory remedy because the third party does not receive the effect of the judgment, has become increasingly influential. However, the question of standing, such as that only a third party litigator can bring a declaratory action, should result in a matter of the benefit of confirmation, which is a legal requirement. Furthermore, even if the third party is not bound by the declaratory judgment, and there is a possibility that legal stability will not be secured and the dispute will not be resolved in the end, it is not reasonable to argue that the confirmation action is inappropriate; rather, it is more appropriate to recognize the benefit of confirmation when the third party is expected to comply with the confirmation judgment in practice or to implement it arbitrarily. However, there is a danger that third-party declaratory action are lawful if they have an indirect effect on the plaintiff's legal field may be overly broad. As long as there is a benefit of confirmation, the Supreme Court's attitude of acknowledging the third-party confirmation lawsuit but paying special attention to acknowledging the benefit of confirmation can secure specific validity in the most reasonable and actually problematic case. Whereas it is necessary to understand a declaratory lawsuit for third-party through a critical perspective and reflect on its significance.