1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is as follows.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

around 16:00 on December 7, 2016, the Plaintiff parked D vehicles at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cbuilding parking lot (hereinafter referred to as “diversous vehicle”) and was shocked by the Defendant working in the said parking lot, and caused the Defendant to suffer injury, such as the luoral base, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The plaintiff supplementary intervenor is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with E as the owner of the marine vehicle.

C. The Defendant agreed to receive 94 times the amount agreed upon between December 10, 2016 and April 22, 2017 under the payment guarantee of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and to receive 2.8 million won the agreed amount between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Intervenor around April 10, 2017.

2. The parties' assertion

A. In light of the medical expenses or the amount agreed upon by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor incurred by the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor does not have any liability to pay the Plaintiff’s damages to the Defendant due to the instant accident. However, the Defendant may claim additional damages due to the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant is able to seek confirmation on the existence of the obligation against the Defendant.

B. After receiving medical expenses or agreed money from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the Defendant did not demand the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to pay damages or insurance money for the instant accident, and is anticipated not to demand it in the future. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation is unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In the lawsuit of confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is an unstable or dangerous in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.