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 plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. On May 26, 2001, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a credit card use payment claim with the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Da632853, on March 25, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff applied for membership with the Defendant’s credit card, and on September 1, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 5,340,00, fee of KRW 51,340, interest of KRW 17,658,49,923, interest of KRW 17,658,50, and interest of KRW 23,503, interest of KRW 29,923 by using the Defendant’s credit card, and on September 2, 2015, the judgment became final and conclusive around the time when the payment was made.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”) / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of evidence No. 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of a debt, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the absence of a debt against the Defendant based on the final judgment of this case, and ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of a debt

However, in a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and thereby, the obtaining of a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension or risk when there is apprehension or risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). However, with respect to the obligation for which the Plaintiff seeks confirmation in this case, the Defendant has already acquired the final judgment of this case, which is an executive title, and the Plaintiff ultimately aims at the claim for confirmation of existence of the said obligation, the Defendant excluded compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s property with the final judgment as an executive title.