Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. Although a lawsuit for confirmation does not necessarily have to be limited to a legal relationship between the parties, but can be limited to a legal relationship between one of the parties and a third party or between a third party, in order to have the interest to seek confirmation of such legal relationship, it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship by the confirmation judgment in order to remove any danger or omission existing in the claimant’s rights or legal status, and it should be the most effective and appropriate means.

(Supreme Court Decision 2015Da206492 Decided June 11, 2015). B.

In this case, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the non-existence of obligation of KRW 31,310,00 against the Defendant based on the contract agreement entered in the attached list (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Defendant also does not assert a direct claim against the Plaintiff (only the Defendant asserts that labor cost owed to C), and it cannot be deemed that there exists any dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on this part, and it is not recognized that there is any apprehension in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in relation to the said claim part.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

C. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that there exists a benefit of confirmation for the following reasons. ① Although the Defendant knows that the Plaintiff paid in full the construction cost upon the filing of the instant contract with C and C pursuant to the instant contract, it filed an application for provisional seizure against claim with the Suwon District Court 2019Kadan1370 by designating the debtor as the Plaintiff, the obligor as Suwon District Court 2019Kadan1370, and on May 28, 2019, issued a provisional seizure order against C’s claim for the construction cost against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure order”).

(2) The defendant is a party to this case.