1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff against the defendant A in relation to the traffic accident stated in the attached Form.

1. Whether the lawsuit against the defendant B is lawful

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a confirmation judgment against the defendant in order to eliminate in danger, in danger, and in danger, in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.

In addition, the defendant in a lawsuit for confirmation is likely to cause unstable legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations. In other words, the defendant in a lawsuit for confirmation must be the one who asserts conflicting interests with the legal interests and interests of the plaintiff, which conflict with the legal interests and interests of the plaintiff, and there is a benefit of confirmation against such defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 1991; 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013).

According to the evidence Nos. 2 (B) and 3, Defendant B entered into a vehicle lease contract with Defendant Heavy CBC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and leased a vehicle with CenzS500. The above vehicle is recognized as a vehicle leased to lease the vehicle owned by Defendant A. In order to rent the vehicle damaged by the instant accident. The person entitled to exercise the right to claim damages equivalent to the rent for the above vehicle against the Plaintiff is the Defendant Company who was not paid the rent for the vehicle. Unless there are special circumstances, Defendant B cannot be deemed as a position to claim the payment of the rent equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff.

(A) Defendant A and B asserted that “A was scheduled to lend a damaged vehicle to B, but impossible due to the instant accident, and thus, B leased a vehicle instead of B.” However, such circumstance alone cannot be said to have a benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of the obligation to pay rent amount against B. Therefore, the part against Defendant B among the instant lawsuit by the Plaintiff.