The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the premise facts is the same as that of “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Issues of the instant case

A. Whether there is a benefit in confirming the instant lawsuit

B. Whether the case is remanded to the first instance court

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The plaintiff asserts that there is a benefit in confirming the lawsuit of this case [the plaintiff's assertion] as follows.

The Plaintiff seeks to confirm that there was no secured debt of the instant case on the grounds that the instant secured debt was not established due to the non-existence of the instant secured debt, the absolute invalidation of the instant secured debt due to the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, and the invalidity of the instant secured debt due to C’s non-existence of a resolution by the board of directors.

Although res judicata has occurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the fact that there was no claim for cancellation registration as to the right to collateral security in the previous lawsuit, the determination on the existence of the secured claim in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the established right to collateral security does not include determination on the existence of the secured claim within the objective scope of res judicata. As a result, there may be disputes as to the existence of the secured claim between C and the Defendant and the Plaintiff as to the existence of the secured claim and its existence. The Plaintiff may suspend the auction procedure for the building of this case by obtaining a final and conclusive judgment that there was no obligation for the secured claim under Article 266(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is legitimate since the plaintiff has legal interest in seeking confirmation of non-existence of the secured debt of this case.

[Defendant's argument] The defendant asserts as follows.

The Plaintiff’s “existing anxiety regarding the legal status of the Plaintiff” that the Plaintiff intended to resolve through the instant case is eventually the Plaintiff.