2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 7,626,196, and the plaintiff.

A. As seen earlier by the Plaintiffs regarding the legitimacy of the Intervenor’s lawsuit against the Plaintiffs, the Intervenor sought compensation for damages on the ground of the Plaintiff’s accident on February 10, 2010 (hereinafter “instant accident”). As such, the Intervenor asserts that the Intervenor’s claim for confirmation of existence of the Intervenor’s obligation due to the Intervenor’s accident on February 10, 2013 between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s insured vehicle, which occurred after the instant accident, should be paid the agreed amount and completed the agreement. As such, the Intervenor’s claim for confirmation of existence of obligation against the Plaintiffs on February 10, 2013.

However, in order to resolve the legal uncertainty or threat existing in the Plaintiff’s right or legal status, the lawsuit for confirmation is to be confirmed by judgment against the other party to the legal relationship or a third party. Here, “legal uncertainty or threat” is typical when one’s own right or legal status is denied or inconsistent with others, and therefore, there is no benefit of confirmation unless there is legal apprehension or threat as there is no dispute between the parties on the pertinent legal relationship.

Therefore, in the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs' assertion that there is no obligation to pay insurance money due to the intervenor's accident on February 10, 2013 against the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs are claiming compensation for damages caused by the accident of this case only to the defendant. Thus, the part of the intervenor's claim against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. The Intervenor’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the Intervenor’s lawsuit against the Defendant is against the Defendant, and the Intervenor’s non-existence of the Intervenor’s obligation based on an accident between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s insured vehicles on February 10, 2013.