1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming the refund of seized money with the Seoul Central District Court 2012Da72740, and the Defendant appointed a law firm as his/her attorney and respondeded to the instant case. On August 16, 2012, the said court ordered the Plaintiff to deposit KRW 10 million with the Plaintiff as a security for the litigation costs of the instant case (hereinafter “instant order to provide security”).

B. Accordingly, on August 21, 2012, the Plaintiff deposited the deposited person as the Defendant in gold No. 16203 of the same court (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

C. After October 30, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the above case No. 2012Ga72740 on October 30, 2012, and the said judgment against the Plaintiff was final and conclusive on September 4, 2013 through the appellate court and the final appeal.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or is not clearly disputed, entry of Gap evidence 3 through Gap evidence 5, and the purport of the whole facts and pleadings in this court】

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s appointment of a legal representative with the State’s budget for the case of Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan72740 was erroneous, and the competent court did not correct the error and issued an order to provide the instant security to the Plaintiff. Since the above case was all terminated through the Supreme Court, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s deposit in the lawsuit of this case shall be refunded KRW 16203 in 2012, which was deposited by the Plaintiff as the security for litigation costs, and that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation against the Defendant that the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case was the Plaintiff, the Defendant provided another procedure to recover the deposit of this case, so the Defendant has no benefit of confirmation.