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 attached list in the plaintiff.

1. Indication of claim;

A. In order to secure the entirety of the obligations owed to the Defendant, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring global liquor, which is a limited partnership company and a limited partnership company and a limited partnership company and a limited partnership company of the obligor (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”) with respect to real estate indicated in the attached list, which is owned by the Plaintiff, as the Suwon District Court No. 32328, Mar. 14, 2007, as the maximum debt amount of KRW 10,000,000, and as the debtor’s limited partnership and a limited partnership company

B. Based on the instant right to collateral security, limited partnership companies were supplied with alcoholic beverages from the Defendant. As of September 30, 2012, the credit amount to be borne by the said company to the Defendant was KRW 23,151,594, and thereafter, the said company did not have any further supply of alcoholic beverages from the Defendant.

C. Accordingly, from October 4, 2012 to November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff repaid totaling KRW 23,151,594 to the Defendant on nine occasions. As such, the Plaintiff demanded against the Defendant to confirm that the Defendant does not have any obligation based on the instant mortgage against the Defendant’s limited partnership company, the Plaintiff does not have any obligation based on the instant limited partnership, and to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the instant registration of the establishment of a mortgage.

2. The lawsuit seeking confirmation of the part of the claim for confirmation of the existence of a debt is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status exists and the judgment of confirmation was rendered is the most most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute fundamentally. In addition, when the mortgagee seeks confirmation of the absence of a secured debt based on the contract for the establishment of a mortgage and seeks cancellation of the mortgage, seeking confirmation of the establishment of a mortgage on the ground that the secured debt does not exist, it would be a direct means to resolve the dispute effectively and appropriately. Therefore, it is reasonable to seek confirmation of the existence of a separate secured debt based on the contract for the establishment of a mortgage.