1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. In principle, a lawsuit for confirmation is limited to cases where the current legal relationship is sought, and exceptionally, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for a lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of a deed, thereby recognizing the claim for confirmation of facts.

A lawsuit on confirmation of the authenticity of a deed is a lawsuit to confirm whether the document was prepared by the person in whose name the deed was prepared, or whether the document was forged or altered, and the lawsuit on confirmation of the authenticity of the deed must have the benefit of confirmation in order to be lawful.

On the other hand, the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as the confirmation judgment in order to eliminate such apprehension and danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da15317, Dec. 10, 1991; 2005Da29290, 29306, Jun. 14, 2007).

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff sought confirmation as to whether the content of the instant loan contract is true rather than seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the monetary loan contract as of June 11, 2013 from the instant complaint to C and the Defendant. This is not a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the current legal relationship, but a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the deed is not subject to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the deed.

In addition, even if the plaintiff's assertion is made to the purport of seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the deed, there is no assertion or proof as to what legal relations or legal status of the plaintiff is removed, in cases where the monetary lending contract as of June 11, 2013 between C and the defendant was confirmed to have not been duly formed.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is limited to facts that are not subject to confirmation.