1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Nonparty B, the Plaintiff’s assertion, was in possession of the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate, driver’s license, and health insurance card, conspired with Nonparty C, the Defendant’s employee, and entered into the instant deposit contract by forging an application for new transaction, etc. under the Plaintiff’s name. As such, the instant deposit contract is null and void. The Plaintiff is anticipated to impose a surcharge upon the Plaintiff by appearance of the transaction details pursuant to the instant deposit contract, and there is legal dispute as to the party to the deposit contract and the party to the deposit contract

2. Determination:

A. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

B. A lawsuit for confirmation is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is infeasible and dangerous, and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da50949, Nov. 9, 2006).

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of unstable risks in rights or legal status, such as legal disputes with regard to the imposition of additional charges or the persons entitled to payment, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Even if there is such apprehensions.

Even if the contract of this case is null and void, it cannot be deemed that the relationship between the imposition of a surcharge and the money reverted to the transaction is final and conclusive depending on whether the contract of this case is null and void, and thus, it cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case does not have a benefit

3. The instant lawsuit is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition.