1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order (Evidence B No. 23) against the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Plaintiff’s Fisheries Cooperatives by having a notary public against the Plaintiff as the title of execution of a notarial deed (Evidence B No. 17) with the executory power of No. 555, No. 555, No. 2013, Jan. 29, 2016.

2. With respect to whether there is a benefit in the lawsuit of this case ex officio as to whether there is a benefit in the lawsuit of this case, the public health room, the original and the defendant have a relationship of loan and debt other than the above executory exemplification of the notarial deed, but as above, the defendant has the executory exemplification of the above notarial deed as the executory exemplification of the above notarial deed, and the plaintiff has to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the above 123 million won as the claim amount against the defendant. In light of this, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff seeks to exclude execution based on the above notarial deed, and in order to achieve this purpose, it is the most effective and appropriate means to dispute by the objection to the claim of notarial deed on the ground that there is no debt under the above notarial deed, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the claim on the notarial deed.

The lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.