2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts that “The Plaintiff’s obligation arising from the instant conciliation order, including Busan District Court 2012ss. 2012s. 9274, is conditional on the condition that the Defendant submitted a certificate of disbursement to the Plaintiff and proceed with mutual consultation with the Plaintiff, etc., and the Defendant did not have fulfilled the above conditions, and thus, the validity of the conditional payment order under the said conciliation order was extinguished,” and sought confirmation that there was no Plaintiff’s obligation (the Defendant’s obligation)

A lawsuit for confirmation is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is infeasible and dangerous and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). However, the instant lawsuit is intended to exclude the executory power of the conciliation decision stated in the purport of the claim. To achieve this purpose, it is a more direct and special remedy procedure, and it is a valid and appropriate means to dispute the existence and scope of the said obligation in the litigation procedure by filing a lawsuit for objection, etc. to the claim, which is a

Therefore, as in the instant case, seeking confirmation of existence of an obligation cannot be deemed an effective and appropriate means, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.