1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants dismissed the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of each obligation.

2. The plaintiff, Ga.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit claiming the existence of an obligation is legitimate

A. In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants did not have been injured due to the instant accident and sought confirmation that there was no obligation to pay any money to the Defendants in relation to the instant accident.

Ex officio, we examine whether the part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of the above obligation among the lawsuits in this case is legitimate.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only for the most effective and appropriate means to obtain judgment from the Defendants to eliminate such apprehension and danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). Although a lawsuit for confirmation may be filed, filing a lawsuit for performance is not a final solution of a dispute, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). C.

In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants had not been injured due to the instant accident, and filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment with respect to mutual aid money already paid against the Defendants. Therefore, obtaining the judgment of confirmation of existence of an obligation related thereto cannot be deemed as a final and adequate method for dispute resolution or a valid and adequate method for dispute resolution.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the Defendants is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. Defendant B1 (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) partially dismissed part of the judgment by public notice (Article 208(2) of the Civil Procedure Act) is that “A malicious beneficiary shall compensate for damages, if he/she returns the interest with the interest attached thereto.”