1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On July 6, 2016, while the Plaintiff was operating a vehicle number C (hereinafter “instant wing Vehicle”) in the Godong-dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant wing Vehicle”), the fact that Nonparty D was driving a vehicle number E (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”) which was driven by Nonparty D, who was under the influence of traffic signal waiting the back part of the vehicle number E (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”) (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). The fact that the Defendant is the owner of the instant damaged vehicle is either disputed between the parties or recognized by the purport of the entry in the evidence No. 3 and all pleadings.

2. As to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s ex officio determination on the validity of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant is seeking confirmation that the damages incurred due to the instant traffic accident against the Defendant shall not exceed KRW 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00

In a lawsuit for confirmation of scambling, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate in danger and in danger of existing in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and in danger and danger.

In addition, the defendant in a lawsuit seeking confirmation is likely to cause anxietys in the legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and in other words, he/she shall be a person who asserts conflicting interests with the legal interests of the plaintiff and, if so, has the benefit of confirmation against such defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). In the instant case, the backer of the damaged vehicle due to the instant traffic accident was damaged. However, the Mezz fire marine insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract regarding the instant Maritime Vehicle provides the defendant with the lending service during the repair period, while it provides the lending service to the defendant.