1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a separate gift contract with the purport that the attached real estate shall be donated to the Defendant, but this is the Plaintiff’s forgery of the part under the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s intention of donation was revoked and thus null and void, and seek confirmation thereon.

On the other hand, a lawsuit for confirmation must be an interest in confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. Here, the interest in confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the defendant in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger, apprehensions, and risks (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da36215, Jul. 14, 2005). However, the Plaintiff’s genuine intent in the lawsuit in this case is disputing a taxation disposition based on the additional gift contract document. Thus, in an administrative litigation disputing a taxation disposition, it is the most effective and appropriate means to assert the invalidity of the additional gift contract certificate as a cause. Thus, seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the additional gift contract certificate cannot be deemed the most effective and adequate means to eliminate anxiety and risks existing in the rights or legal status asserted by the Plaintiff.

Even if this court receives the plaintiff's claim, it is not easy to seek in administrative litigation, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is not feasible.

On the other hand, since the defendant does not dispute the plaintiff's claim, the benefit of confirmation is not recognized.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is dismissed as it is inappropriate to recognize the benefit of confirmation.