All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits that have been changed in exchange in the trial are dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

We examine the defendant's main defense of safety.

The plaintiffs claim that the obligation stated in the purport of the claim, which is the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established on each real property listed in the attached list, is invalid, or that the loan transaction agreement which is the cause thereof was set aside against the damage claim against the defendant.

In the lawsuit of confirmation, the object of confirmation is the current rights or legal relations, so it is not recognized as the existence of past rights or legal relations unless there are special circumstances.

The lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a secured obligation of a right to collateral security is recognized as a matter of past rights or legal relations upon cancellation of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17585, Aug. 23, 2013). Furthermore, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is the most effective and appropriate means to remove anxiety and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da21643, Mar. 30, 2017). According to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the Defendant was present at the lower court’s 1-1, 13, 1-4, 12, and 14, and 200 million won against the Defendant’s 1-2, 300,000,000 won for each of the instant real estate acquired by the Plaintiff C-owned real estate and 300,000,00 won.