2. The Defendants are listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

2. Applicable provisions;

A. Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act against Defendant B and D (i.e., a judgment deemed as a confession)

B. Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by public notice) against Defendant C

3. We examine ex officio the partial rejection of the lawsuit in this case as to the legitimacy of the part demanding the confirmation of existence of an 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. In addition, in a case where the person who created the right to collateral security seeks to confirm that there was no obligation of collateral based on the right to collateral security, and seeks to cancel the registration of creation of the right to collateral security, seeking cancellation of the right to collateral security on the ground that there is no obligation of collateral security, is a direct means to resolve the dispute effectively and appropriately. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation that there is no obligation of collateral

(2) On December 24, 1992, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation of the non-existence of an obligation under a monetary loan agreement as of December 24, 1992 against E, which is the secured obligation of the right to collateral security stated in the Disposition No. 200Da5640, Apr. 11, 2000, is dismissed as it is unlawful since there is no benefit of confirmation.