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

Each of the above payments shall be deemed null and void because it has considerably lost fairness due to the plaintiff's old-age, rashness, or inexperience, or is made by the defendant's coercion, or was made in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and thus null and void of the above payments.

2. As to the legitimacy of a lawsuit, the Plaintiff is demanding the invalidation of a payment letter.

Since a claim in a lawsuit is subject only to specific rights or legal relations, seeking the invalidity of each payment in the form of payment does not have the benefit of protecting the rights.

Even if it is deemed that the plaintiff's claim is sought confirmation of invalidity of the letter of payment, the non-party subject to confirmation is a requirement for the current rights or legal relations except for the "written confirmation of authenticity of the certificate" as stipulated in Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act. The confirmation of invalidity of the letter of payment cannot be considered as the confirmation of current rights or legal relations, and it is apparent that it is not a confirmation of authenticity of the letter of payment. Thus, this is also infinite legal.

In addition, according to Gap 1, a suit has already been filed surrounding the legal relations to be proved by the above payment note, and the judgment of the first instance court (the Cheongju District Court 2019 Audio District Court 2001) was rendered, and it is recognized that the appellate court (Cheongju District Court 2020Na 14971) has been pending in the appellate court.

In such a case, it is necessary to resolve the dispute in the above lawsuit, and filing a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity or authenticity of a separate payment note does not have the benefit of confirmation, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Conclusion, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed.