1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1’s argument as to June 25, 2013, following the following facts: (a) the defendant and D, who were married as of June 25, 2013 under C’s name, (i) the spouse of the defendant and D, (ii) the amount of KRW 70 million on October 31, 2012, (iii) the amount of KRW 120 million on June 25, 2013, and (i) the sum of KRW 120 million on the loan as the bank interest, and (iii) the amount of KRW 30 million on the loan interest and principal immediately at the time of selling real estate owned by the principal (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”); (b) C died on June 17, 2014 (hereinafter “the deceased”), and (iii) the plaintiff and his spouse, the deceased’s spouse, the deceased, and (iv) the deceased’s 14 billion on the loan of this case, and (iii) the deceased 2014 billion on the loan of this case.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit, J, K, etc. conspired to forge the instant loan certificate and deliver it to the Defendant, and sought confirmation that the instant loan certificate was not a true document.

In a case where a lawsuit has already been filed over a legal relationship to be proved by a certain document, it would be possible to resolve the dispute, and thus, it would be said that the filing of a lawsuit to confirm whether the document is authentic, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da29290, 29306, Jun. 14, 2007). The fact that the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. with the instant loan certificate prior to the filing of the lawsuit is the same as seen earlier, and thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful.