1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that E is an actual operator of a restaurant in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (mutual D; hereinafter “instant restaurant”), and invested KRW 200 million to it.

o In order to recover the above investment money, the Plaintiff provisionally attached the claim for the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant to the Defendant to the instant restaurant, and thereafter, the lease contract with the Defendant was prepared by the parties to the instant restaurant, E, and the Plaintiff provisionally attached the claim for the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant to the Defendant to the Defendant to the instant restaurant, and thereafter, a third party moved in the part of the building where the instant restaurant was located.

o The Plaintiff, through the instant lawsuit, confirmed that each lease contract (which was submitted to the competent tax office for business registration) made between E and the Defendant with respect to the instant restaurant was not a document in which the authenticity has been achieved, and then sought to hold a civil and criminal liability against the Plaintiff on the ground that the lease contract was fraudulent from E and F.

2. Permission of a lawsuit seeking a confirmation of facts on a document verifying legal relations pursuant to Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act on the legality of the lawsuit of this case is for the following reasons: (a) the authenticity of the document verifying legal relations becomes final and conclusive; (b) the parties can no longer dispute on the authenticity of the document; and (c) the parties themselves have to resolve the dispute on legal relations or at least contribute to the settlement of the dispute itself; and (d) for the legitimate purpose of the lawsuit, there is a benefit to seek confirmation on the authenticity of the document.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714, Dec. 14, 2001). Therefore, in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the truth of the deed against the Defendant, the Plaintiff was subject to fraud from E and F.