2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A lawsuit for confirmation is permitted at the time of the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, and where a creditor files a lawsuit for performance against a debtor and the debtor files a subsequent lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of an obligation against the creditor while the lawsuit is in progress, even though the purport of the lawsuit is different from that of the claim, the debtor may argue that the creditor does not have a claim against the debtor by seeking a judgment of dismissal of the claim in the performance lawsuit, so there is no benefit to seek confirmation that there is no obligation against the creditor separately.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22246 Decided July 24, 2001. In light of the above legal principles, it is sufficient that the Plaintiff asserts that the above claim of the Defendant was exempted from liability in the lawsuit (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017Gadan9750) for the interruption of the prescription of the above claim against the Plaintiff, which is pending, against the Plaintiff, as the ground for defense. The Plaintiff’s separate claim for the confirmation of the above obligation against the Defendant cannot be deemed as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the instability and danger of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation of the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as there is no interest in the lawsuit.