2. The plaintiffs' preliminary claims are dismissed.

3...

A. From December 28, 2006, the Plaintiffs have been in the position of creditors with respect to E Co., Ltd. (E) (hereinafter “E”).

B. On August 16, 2011, the Defendant entered into the instant transfer security agreement with E to acquire the right to collateral security owned by E within the scope of the purpose of collateral security.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1-1, 1-2, 3-1 through 3-196, and the purport of all pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiffs, as to the legitimacy of the primary claim, primarily seek confirmation of the invalidity of the instant transfer security agreement. Thus, the lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to the legal relationship between the parties, but can also be subject to the legal relationship between one party and a third party or between the third party. However, in order to determine the legal relationship as to the benefit of confirmation, the legal relationship must lead to the risk or non-existence of the party's rights or legal status. In order to remove the danger or non-performance, it is necessary to immediately determine by the judgment of confirmation that is the object of confirmation of the legal relationship, and it should be the most effective and appropriate means.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5970, Aug. 23, 2007). As to the instant case, the Defendant did not deny the Plaintiffs’ rights or legal status at the beginning, and even if the Plaintiffs were to receive a favorable judgment in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant security agreement filed against the Defendant, the judgment does not confirm any rights of the Plaintiffs in relation to the Defendant, but does not affect E, and thus, this part of the lawsuit seeking confirmation cannot be an effective and appropriate means to resolve the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, which is the Plaintiff, and thus, the benefit of confirmation is difficult.