1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows 2.3; and (b) the judgment is added to the following 3.; and (c) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the rejection of the entries in Gap 9-1 and 2, which are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as additional evidence submitted at the court of first instance; and (d) it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. On the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the second day of February 13, 2015" in the

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which stated that the defendant's defense prior to the merits was "the judgment of the court of first instance" from No. 9 to No. 7 of the 9.

The gist of the main defense of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, seeking the absence of an obligation under the guarantee insurance contract of this case concluded between the Plaintiff and Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, there must be the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation shall be recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a confirmation judgment against the defendant, in order to eliminate the apprehension, danger, and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68650 Decided February 9, 2007). Although the Plaintiff stated in the purport of the claim as “the Plaintiff’s obligation based on the claim for guarantee insurance,” the cause of the claim and all other circumstances revealed in the pleading, the subject of the claim for non-existence in the lawsuit of this case is not the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant or Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. based on the guarantee insurance contract of this case.

Rather, the defendant's claim for performance guarantee insurance against Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. is interpreted as the damage liability due to the plaintiff's default.

The Defendant’s instant case to the Plaintiff on February 12, 2015.