1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the instant lawsuit, deposit money shall be deposited by falsifying or altering private documents.

1. The grounds for this part of the facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in subparagraphs 14 and 4). Thus, this part of the facts are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. We examine the legitimacy of the claim for confirmation that the payment of deposit money was made by forgery or alteration of private documents, ex officio, and examine the legitimacy of the claim seeking confirmation that Defendant B paid the deposit money of this case by forgery or alteration of private documents.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation shall be recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate such apprehension and danger, and therefore, the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation shall be a person who is likely to cause apprehension and danger in the legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and the benefit of confirmation shall be against such defendant.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997, etc.). In light of these legal principles, the fact that Defendant B, as the representative of the Defendant clan, paid the instant deposit by forging or altering private documents does not relate to the Plaintiff’s rights or legal relations, but merely sought confirmation of the past factual relations, which had existed in the past, cannot be deemed as having benefit of confirmation regardless of the authenticity of such fact.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Ex officio, determination as to the legitimacy of the claim for deposit performance, the claim for the refund of the deposit money of this case and the interest for delay from the date of withdrawal to the date of refund to the deposit officer from among the lawsuit of this case is lawful.