1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

1. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit is recognized where obtaining a judgment of confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the uncertainty and risk of legal status, and filing a lawsuit claiming performance, despite the fact that filing a lawsuit for confirmation does not constitute a final solution of a dispute, and thus there is no benefit in confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006; 2016Da241249, Jan. 12, 2017). Furthermore, whether there is a benefit in confirmation of a lawsuit seeking confirmation is a matter of ex officio investigation, and thus, the court should ex officio determine ex officio regardless of the party’s assertion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da12905 Decided July 12, 1991). On the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case ex officio, the plaintiff sought confirmation on September 12, 2018 as to the plaintiff's defendants based on the certificate of refund of deposit for a lease on a deposit basis prepared between the plaintiff and the defendants, D and E, as shown in the separate sheet. However, the defendants are not parties to the above certificate of return of deposit for a lease on a deposit basis, and there is no claim against the plaintiff or D based on the above certificate of deposit for a lease on a deposit basis. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of confirmation of this case against the defendants does not have a benefit of confirmation.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since all of the plaintiff's lawsuits against the defendants are unlawful.