1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall enter the plaintiffs in the annexed list.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Judgment with no applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. The part of the plaintiffs, which dismissed, seek confirmation that there is no obligation for the establishment of a collateral security agreement from the beginning that there was no obligation for the collateral security agreement or that there was no obligation for the extinguishment of prescription. The lawsuit for confirmation is permissible when the plaintiff's right or legal status is the most effective and appropriate means to fundamentally resolve the dispute. In addition, in the case of seeking cancellation of the establishment of a collateral security agreement, seeking confirmation of the collateral security agreement on the ground that there is no obligation for the collateral security agreement, and seeking confirmation of the cancellation of the establishment of a collateral security agreement on the ground that there is no obligation for the collateral security agreement would be a direct means to effectively resolve the dispute, and thus, seeking confirmation of the existence of a separate obligation for the collateral security agreement cannot be deemed as a benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 200). This part of the lawsuit against the defendant among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.