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

A. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, the subject matter of confirmation requires the present rights or legal relations. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the existence of past rights or legal relations is not recognized. Thus, if a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the secured obligation of the right to collateral security is cancelled, there is no benefit of confirmation as it concerns past rights or legal relations (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17585, Aug. 23, 2013).

The following facts are recognized by each description of Gap evidence (each number omitted) or are significant in this court:

1) On July 28, 2015, the instant court rendered a decision to voluntarily commence the auction on the instant land (D). On the same day, the instant land was sold at the said auction on May 27, 2016, and the instant mortgage on the said land was cancelled, and on the date of distribution on July 15, 2016, the distribution schedule was prepared on the date of distribution of the said auction. (2) The Plaintiff appeared on the said date of distribution and stated an objection against the Defendant regarding the total amount of the Defendant’s dividends, which are the instant right to collateral security, and won the lawsuit of demurrer the Defendant by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution.

Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2017Na8355 Decided May 10, 2019) d.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of non-existence of secured debt of this case already cancelled as seen above is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.