1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of the 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. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. As to dismissal part, the Plaintiff also sought confirmation of the absence of the obligation against the Defendant of B, which is the secured obligation of the right to collateral security as stated in the Disposition No. 2, but the lawsuit for confirmation is permissible when it is the most effective and appropriate means for the Plaintiff’s right or legal status to fundamentally resolve the dispute. In addition, in the case of seeking confirmation of the absence of the secured obligation based on the contract to collateral security, the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground that the person who created the right to collateral security did not have the secured obligation, and seeking confirmation of the absence of the secured obligation based on the contract to collateral security, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation of the absence of the secured obligation based on the contract to collateral security

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640 delivered on April 11, 2000). Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit’s claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, and thus, it is dismissed.