2. The defendant's Suwon District Court against the plaintiff.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. We examine ex officio the dismissed part of the lawsuit in this case as to the legitimacy of the part demanding the confirmation of existence of an obligation.

The plaintiff asserts that the obligation according to the above protocol is extinguished, and sought non-performance of compulsory execution according to the above protocol, and also sought confirmation of non-existence of the obligation.

However, the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights in a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation is recognized only when it is most effective and appropriate to eliminate the risk of the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and the defendant is given a confirmation judgment.

However, since the plaintiff ultimately aims at the claim for the confirmation of the existence of the above obligation, the defendant excludes compulsory execution against the plaintiff's property with the above mediation protocol as executive title, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to file a lawsuit of objection against the defendant in order to achieve this objective, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of obligation under the above mediation protocol separately.

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.