1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence No. 1 together with the purport of the entire pleadings.

The Defendant is the owner of the Gangwon-do Hongcheon-gun C land (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff owned a container on the ground of the instant land as the former owner of the instant land.

B. On July 18, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the removal, etc. of containers, etc. on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant recommendation for reconciliation”) with the Suwon District Court, which issued a decision to recommend reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the “decision on recommending reconciliation”) with the following details.

C. Details of the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case

1. The plaintiff and the defendant simultaneously perform the following obligations:

The Plaintiff removes all of the ground containers and accessorys on the ground of Hongcheon-gun Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon-do by August 31, 2014, and delivers the said land to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant shall pay 2.5 million won to the Plaintiff by August 31, 2014.

2. If the Plaintiff fails to perform the foregoing matters by August 31, 2014, the Plaintiff considers that it waives the rights to containers, accessories on the ground, and all movable property existing on the said land. The Defendant does not raise any objection even upon voluntary disposal, and does not obstruct the Defendant’s use of the said land in the future.

The decision of recommending reconciliation in this case was finalized on August 8, 2014.

2. The plaintiff, ex officio, asserts that the defendant did not pay KRW 2.5 million to the plaintiff as to the containers on the ground of the land of this case according to the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the above-ground container on the land of this case seeks confirmation that it

ex officio deemed.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is in dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship.