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's original district court against the plaintiff.

1. Indication of Claim: Although an order for payment indicated in the order was finalized, the Plaintiff did not purchase the goods from B that it transferred the goods payment claim to the Defendant, and thus, was not allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on the above payment order (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. The lawsuit for confirmation of the portion of rejection is recognized where it is the most effective and appropriate means to be judged by a confirmation judgment in removing the Plaintiff’s legal status’s unstable danger. Unlike seeking the enforcement force of the above 2015 tea96 payment order, it is not necessary to seek confirmation of the Plaintiff’s existence of the obligation against the Defendant based on the above payment order. Therefore, the part claiming confirmation of the above existence of obligation is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.