2. Defendant A and B:

(a) joint;

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of automobile maintenance business, etc., and Defendant A and B are the owners of automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and Defendant Aju Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is the mortgagee of the instant vehicle.

B. On April 1, 2014, Defendant A requested repair of the instant vehicle and delivered it to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff repaired the instant vehicle, and the repair cost of the instant vehicle is KRW 66,817,872 (i.e., the repair cost of KRW 54,508,872 (= KRW 12,309,000).

C. The Plaintiff completed the repair of the instant vehicle and possessed it until now on June 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant Company

A. The Defendant Company’s principal safety defense of the Defendant Company consented to the Plaintiff’s application for auction as the lien holder. As such, it cannot be said that any danger or risk is caused to the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status due to the registration of the mortgage of the Defendant Company or the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant Company

B. 1) Determination 1) The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is acknowledged in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and thereby, it is recognized that the determination by the confirmation judgment is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status in the event that the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; and the lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to the legal relationship between the parties, but can also be subject to