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

In the instant case, the Plaintiff is expected to claim against the Defendant for restitution of unjust enrichment or damages equivalent to KRW 24,970,000, and thus, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the instant loan transaction agreement was not a document that was duly formed.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the loan transaction agreement of this case was concluded by filing a lawsuit for the return of the sale price and the confirmation of the existence of the obligation (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Gahap9085, Seoul High Court 2015Na2062423, Supreme Court 2017Da211290, hereinafter “the prior lawsuit of this case”) against the buyer, including the Plaintiff, in the process of implementing a collective loan for the payment of part payments in relation to the Jung-gu Incheon Jung-gu B apartment sold by Masan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Masan Construction”). Since the prior lawsuit of this case could file a dispute as to whether the deed of this case was incomplete in the prior lawsuit of this case, there is no benefit of confirmation again seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the deed of this case as the lawsuit of this case.

B. (1) The lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of a deed is a lawsuit to confirm whether a document was forged or altered, unless it was prepared by the person in whose name the document was prepared, and the independent lawsuit is allowed for the confirmation of the fact, which is the authenticity of the document, by the reason that the authenticity of the document verifying the legal relationship becomes final and conclusive by a judgment, the dispute itself is likely to be resolved, or at least, to contribute to the resolution of the dispute, as a result of the lack of dispute between the parties.

Therefore, a lawsuit has already been filed on the legal relationship to be proved by a document.