In addition to adding the evidence No. 22 to the column [based on recognition] as follows, it is the same as the description. Therefore, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

I. On December 4, 2017, the Defendant deposited the settlement amount of KRW 15,526,290 for the completion inspection of the instant construction project on the ground of competition, such as the seizure of the creditors of the Plaintiff.

2. The assertion and determination as to the lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of an obligation

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to compensate for damages or the obligation to pay the contract performance bond under the instant construction contract, and there is no obligation to pay the contract performance bond premised on this. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff is at risk of being subject to the exercise of the right to reimbursement and provisional seizure from the Financial Cooperative. Therefore, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of the said obligation. 2) The Defendant Plaintiff is merely an indirect interest and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. Determination 1) A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the original and the Defendant, but may also be subject to a legal relationship between the original and the third party or between third parties. However, according to such legal relationship, the confirmation of such legal relationship is required to be immediately finalized by the confirmation judgment between the original and the Defendant based on the legal relationship to verify the legal relationship in order to eliminate the risks and apprehensions existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status. Moreover, there is a benefit of confirmation that it becomes the most effective and appropriate means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1570, May 12, 2016).