2. The defendant's District Court in Incheon for the plaintiff.

2. Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment without pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. The judgment on the part of the claim for confirmation of existence of an obligation is ex officio; however, the lawsuit for confirmation is permitted when there is an apprehension that the Plaintiff’s right or legal status exists and the judgment of confirmation is rendered is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 200). The ultimate purpose of the claim for confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuit of this case is to exclude compulsory execution by the Defendant with the judgment of this case (Seoul District Court Decision 2009Da336104, Mar. 10, 2010) as an executive title, and thus, as long as the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in order to achieve the above objective, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of absence of an obligation which forms the basis of the judgment of this case separately.

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation among the lawsuit in this case is dismissed as it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation.