1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of the existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant is against the plaintiff (appointed party) A.

1. The plaintiff is the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and the defendant is the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and the defendant is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security registration for the establishment of the right to collateral security on October 18, 1989 with regard to the real estate stated in the separate sheet. The defendant seeks confirmation and cancellation registration of the non-existence of the right to collateral security and the right to collateral security on October 18, 1989.

3. The lawsuit seeking confirmation of the part of the claim for confirmation of the existence of a debt is permissible when the plaintiff's right or legal status exists and the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to solve the dispute fundamentally. In addition, in the case of seeking confirmation of the existence of a collateral security obligation based on a collateral security contract, seeking cancellation of the establishment of a collateral security right on the ground that the person who created a collateral security right does not have a collateral security obligation, and seeking confirmation of the establishment of a collateral security right on the ground that the collateral security right does not exist in the collateral security right is a direct means to resolve the dispute effectively and appropriately, so it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation that there is no collateral obligation based on a collateral security contract (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da5640, Apr. 11, 200). The part seeking confirmation of the existence of a debt of the lawsuit of this case