1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s principal lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Judgment on the main lawsuit

A. The main point of the plaintiff's assertion is that the notarial deed of this case, which is the cause of the plaintiff, the payee's defendant, and the face value of the plaintiff 80 million won, is null and void because the defendant lent the notarial deed of this case, or it was prepared by the employees of the plaintiff church and it was revoked by mistake. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant as to the notarial deed does not exist following the above invalidation or revocation.

The defendant asserts that since the defendant D, a creditor of the defendant, as the defendant, had the debtor as the defendant and the third debtor as the plaintiff and had the defendant seized and has all of the claims on the above notarial deed against the plaintiff, the defendant's claims amounting to KRW 80 million on the notarial deed of this case were transferred to D.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation of relevant legal principles, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and the risk, and it is recognized that the Defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation is the one likely to cause anxiety and danger in the Plaintiff’s legal status by dispute over the Plaintiff’s rights or legal relations, and there is a benefit of confirmation against such Defendant.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997, etc.). C.

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles, as alleged by the Defendant, the facts that D was seized and entirely subject to the instant claim on the notarial deed do not conflict between the parties, or acknowledged by the entry of the evidence No. 8, and the Defendant also transferred the claim amounting to KRW 80 million against the Plaintiff to D, and thus, the Defendant did not have the right to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to KRW 80 million on the notarial deed of this case against the Defendant did not exist.