1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Judgment on the interest of the lawsuit

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). B.

In this case, the plaintiffs seek confirmation against the defendant that the ownership of the goods indicated in the attachment list 1 and 2 is against the plaintiff C, and that the ownership of the goods indicated in the attachment list 3 and 4 is against the plaintiff A and B.

In regard to this, it is evident in the records of this case that the defendant did not dispute the above assertion of the plaintiffs and recognized all the above plaintiffs' ownership, and it cannot be viewed that there is any apprehension or risk in relation to the rights or legal status of the plaintiffs as to the ownership of each of the above items

(The court requested the plaintiffs to clarify the existence of the interest in the lawsuit through the order to make a tin preparation, but the plaintiffs did not submit any special assertion or evidence on this issue). 2. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it does not have any interest in confirmation.