1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s ground for claim

A. Defendant B borrowed a total of KRW 535,00,000 from January 1, 1995 to November 201, 2016 to own each real estate and business right listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. Defendant B, instead of paying the above money, decided to testamentary gift all of the instant real estate, etc. to the Plaintiff. A notary public prepared a testamentary deed stating that the pertinent real estate and the right to permission as stated in attached Forms 1 through 12 were testamentary gifted to the Plaintiff as stated in attached Forms 1 through 249, 2015, and Defendant C was designated as testament executor.

In addition, Defendant B promised to legacy the real estate listed in attached Form 13 to the Plaintiff.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that Defendant B’s will is valid until the procedure for ownership transfer against the Plaintiff is completed, and to confirm the existence of Defendant C’s executor’s duty.

Judgment

Ex officio, we examine whether the lawsuit of this case has interest in confirmation.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, “the benefit of confirmation” is recognized at the time when a judgment of confirmation is the most effective means to be rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da1264, Oct. 11, 1991). A will becomes effective upon the death of a testator (see, e.g., Article 1073(1) of the Civil Act); a testator may withdraw all or part of his/her will by will or by an act of birth at any time (see, e.g., Article 1108(1) of the Civil Act); and a testator may not waive his/her right to withdraw his/her will.

(2) The Plaintiff is seeking confirmation of the validity of the will made by Defendant B, and the confirmation of the existence of the duty as executor to Defendant C who was designated by Defendant B as the executor.

However, as long as the defendant B is alive, the will of the defendant B is still effective.