2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where determination by a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable and dangerous. Thus, even though a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought, filing a lawsuit for performance is not a final solution of a dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff had no obligation against the Defendant, as seen in the purport of the claim, when the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a loan based on an installment financing contract as of April 5, 2014, the Plaintiff fully repaid the entire amount of the loan and the obligation for the said loan has already been extinguished. As such, the part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation in the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed an effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute ultimately, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Determination as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not visit an agency operated by the Defendant or directly contact with the Defendant, but did not have any explanation or guidance as to the terms and conditions of the loan, and there is no loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. According to Article 3 of the terms and conditions of the Defendant’s loan contract, the term “small and Medium-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-Sto-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S to-S