1. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed by the exchange in this court.

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

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

The subject of confirmation in a lawsuit seeking confirmation is the current rights or legal relations. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it is not recognized the existence of the past rights or legal relations. Thus, if the 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 to the past rights or legal relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17585, Aug. 23, 2013). According to records, the Defendant’s registration on December 6, 2004 with respect to each of the real estate of this case was completed prior to the establishment registration (hereinafter referred to as “the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage”) No. 21594, Jun. 2, 2015, the Defendant sold the real estate of this case upon the Defendant’s application for the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case, and all of the real estate of this case was cancelled.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no benefit to confirm that the lawsuit of this case seeking the confirmation of the existence of a previous right or legal relationship by asserting that the Plaintiff’s secured obligation of this case was extinguished by prescription, and that the said obligation had been extinguished by prescription.

[In addition, according to the records, the plaintiff asserted that the secured debt against the defendant who received distributions in the above auction procedure has expired by prescription, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution (Korean Government District Court Decision 2017Da4058). Thus, there is no benefit of confirmation in that the lawsuit of this case is not an effective and adequate way to solve a fundamental dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da34009, Nov. 22, 1996). 2.