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

A. On October 25, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile operation lease agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and delivered the instant automobile to the Defendant Company.

Defendant D guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff terminated the above lease agreement due to the Defendants’ delinquency in rent, and was returned by the Defendants.

C. The Plaintiff is a plan to dispose of the instant motor vehicle by public sale to cover the money with the remaining lease fees of the Defendants.

Although the Defendants returned the instant automobile, the Plaintiff failed to obtain consent to the procedure for disposal of public sale, etc. due to the Defendants’ non-cooperative attitude.

In the future, on the grounds that the Defendants did not consent to the public auction disposition due to changes, there is a concern for raising a civil petition to the Financial Supervisory Service to cause legal disputes, and therefore, it is necessary to obtain confirmation judgment on the Plaintiff’s right to possess and dispose of the instant motor vehicle.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation must be immediately removed because of apprehensions in rights or legal status, risks, and the removal of such apprehensions and risks is recognized only as the most effective means. Thus, in a case where there is no apprehensions in rights or legal status, risk does not exist, or where there is no practical necessity for a confirmation to be rendered due to the existence of other special circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation.