1. The intermediate confirmation lawsuit in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 19,083,300 as well as to the plaintiff on January 2009.

1. Whether the lawsuit for interim confirmation is lawful among the lawsuit of this case

A. Regarding the legitimacy of the lawsuit for interim confirmation in the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff, as the lawsuit of this case against the defendant, sought payment of loans, etc. from the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2007Guj5678 and the court 2007Guj6039 at the same court as the payment order for loans. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the claim and obligation between the plaintiff and the defendant in accordance with the agreement of May 20, 2009 between the plaintiff and the defendant was settled by the agreement to pay the plaintiff 40 million won to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted that the above agreement was null and void as the lawsuit for interim confirmation in this case's non-performance of obligation, and separately sought confirmation that documents prepared by the agreement of May 20, 209 between the plaintiff and the defendant were null and void due to the non-performance of obligation payment order under the above agreement, but the above agreement was confirmed to be invalid by the court 2007Gudong District Court 207567, May 27, 2007

B. In a lawsuit for interim confirmation, when there is a dispute between the parties as to the existence of legal relations in a prior relation with the judgment of the original lawsuit, the lawsuit is filed to seek confirmation of such legal relations by combining the litigation procedures. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means for the defendant to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the defendant when there is an indemnite or risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and removing such apprehension or risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747, Oct. 16, 1997). Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act permits a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of a deed