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

2. The Defendants shall list the Plaintiffs’ attached list.

1. The description of the grounds for the change in the specification of the claim;

At the same time, the Plaintiff requested for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation with respect to the secured debt of the above secured mortgage while seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case. Therefore, we examine ex officio the validity of the part of the claim for confirmation of existence

A lawsuit for confirmation is permitted only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain the judgment of confirmation in order to eliminate the uncertainty and risk that exist in the rights or legal status of the plaintiffs and in order to eliminate such apprehension and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 2000). The Plaintiffs’ seeking to cancel the registration of the establishment of the creation of the instant neighboring mortgage against the defendants is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risks of the plaintiffs’ legal status arising from the registration of the establishment of the said neighboring mortgage. In such a case, seeking the confirmation of existence of the said obligation together is not a method to resolve the disputes, and it

2. Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts.