1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the original M&T, Inc. shall be dismissed.

2. An accident shall be caused by the annexed list 1.

1. The occurrence of a traffic accident and the repair Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant Won M&T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Won M&T), the owner of the insured vehicle (referring to NNS - BH30, vehicle number A, and the instant vehicle) listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

On May 2, 2014, around 8:00 p.m., the instant vehicle had contacted with the wall while coming from the new Gandong parking lot in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and caused a flive accident of flicking the wall into the wall from the front to the rear part of the flick, and the Defendant flickx left the vehicle repair to the Defendant flickdong Development Center (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant flick Road Development Center).

On May 30, 2014, Defendant Won M&T paid KRW 2,898,00 (the sum of KRW 470,274, technical fees, KRW 2164,789, and KRW 263,506, plus KRW 2,898,569, which is less than KRW 2,898,569, and the insurance claim against the Plaintiff was transferred on April 23, 2015.

above does not have any dispute.

2. In a lawsuit seeking an ex officio determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit against Defendant Won M&T, the benefit of confirmation must be recognized as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate ineasia, danger, and apprehension and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.

In addition, according to the aforementioned facts, the defendant in a lawsuit for confirmation may cause uneasy in the legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and again, he/she shall be a person who has asserted conflicting interests with the legal interests of the plaintiff, which conflict with those of the plaintiff's legal interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). According to the aforementioned facts, the defendant Won-TT, who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the plaintiff, as the owner of the instant vehicle.