1. Among the instant lawsuits, the source and the Defendant of Ansan-si Group B, C, D, E, F, and solar power generation facilities located in Ansan-si.

1. Rejection part

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, 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 obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate such apprehension and danger, and thus, the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation must dispute the plaintiff's rights or legal relations to cause apprehension and danger in the plaintiff's legal status, and the benefit of confirmation must be against such defendant.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68650, 68667 delivered on February 9, 2007, etc.) B.

2. As indicated in the grounds of the claim, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the absence of the contract for the construction of solar power infrastructure located in Ansan-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the construction contract of this case”). However, the Defendant did not dispute with the Plaintiff on the premise that the construction contract of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and it is the most effective and appropriate means to dispute the absence of the construction contract of this case at Ansan-si. Thus, among the lawsuit of this case, the part seeking confirmation of the absence of the construction contract of this case at Ansan-si is not illegal as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. The cited part

(a) Description of claims: Attached Form 1. The description of the cause of the claims;

(b) Judgment by publication: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act;