2. Defendant B is with the Plaintiff KRW 35,000,000.

A suit for confirmation is an effective and appropriate means of dispute resolution, and there is a benefit of confirmation, and even though it may bring a suit for performance, which is a direct means of dispute resolution, the claim for confirmation of the existence of the claim for performance itself.

Although a lawsuit seeking the non-existence of an obligation is pending, and the debtor can contest the existence of an obligation by seeking a ruling of dismissal of the claim in the lawsuit, it is deemed that there is no benefit to confirm the non-existence of the obligation.

(1) As seen in the purport of the claim, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 35,00,000 against the Defendants on the premise that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation against the Defendant B. As seen in the purport of the claim, the part of the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit in this case does not have any benefit of confirmation.

This part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for performance against Defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: It is identical to the description concerning the plaintiff and the defendant B in the annexed cause of claims;

(Provided, however, the Plaintiff does not specify the starting point of starting damages for delay in the purport of the claim, but the date on which Defendant B acquired unjust enrichment is claimed as the starting point and the dividend is deemed to have been settled on June 18, 2013, which is the day following June 19, 2013.

Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea

A. In fact of recognition, Yongcheon-si, C Apartment No. 101, 807, Dong 807 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Plaintiff A.

On February 9, 2004, the Plaintiff as the debtor, and Defendant B as the mortgagee.