1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

The reason why Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act permits a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of a deed is that, as a result, the parties may no longer dispute as to the authenticity of a document verifying the legal relationship if it becomes final and conclusive, the dispute itself concerning legal relations or at least the dispute itself is significantly helpful for the resolution of the dispute itself. Therefore, in order to legally confirm the authenticity of a lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of a deed, there is a benefit to seek

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da29290 Decided June 14, 2007). In addition, a lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of a deed is not allowed to confirm whether the document solely proves the right or legal relation was actually prepared by the person who prepared the document, and whether the contents written in the document are consistent with objective truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Da4710, Feb. 14, 1989). The Plaintiff did not prepare the “certificate of borrowing (Evidence A) for KRW 45,00,000 on April 10, 2014, as stated in the attached loan certificate. The Plaintiff asserted that there was no fact that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed it. However, it is difficult to view that the dispute itself asserted by the Plaintiff or is significantly helpful for resolution of the dispute, and the Plaintiff did not have any interest in the lawsuit in this case, since the confirmation of the authenticity of the above loan certificate does not exist.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.