2. Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Article 397(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the debtor’s property shall be restored to its original state through the exercise of the right to set aside (Article 397(1)), and the right to set aside may be exercised not only by a lawsuit but also by defense (Article 396(1)). In this case, the term “exercise by a lawsuit to set aside” means that the act subject to set aside may be deemed as a lawsuit seeking performance of the right to set aside, or by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence or absence of the legal relationship, pursuant to the legal effect that arises when the act subject to set aside loses its effect retroactively.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da56865 Decided May 28, 2009). In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a joint claim seeking a declaration that denies the aforementioned mortgage establishment agreement by exercising the right to set aside under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act and a claim seeking restitution.

On the other hand, if the plaintiff's exercise of the right to set aside is recognized, the effect of the right to set up a mortgage of this case is retroactively lost by the formation of the right to set aside, and the defendant is obligated to restore to its original state, and the plaintiff is given a judgment to restore to its original state, thereby achieving the purpose of the lawsuit. Barring any special circumstance, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of seeking a declaration of set aside as to the right

I would like to say.

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the denial of the mortgage contract of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed.