1. The Defendant’s peremptory notice to the Plaintiff on December 21, 2015 to “B” (179,254,795 won and its corresponding amount).

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all the arguments, the defendant sent a peremptory notice to the plaintiff on December 21, 2015, stating that "the foundation which was declared bankrupt on April 30, 2013 (case No. 2013Hahap46) and should recover public funds on December 21, 2015, as the bankruptcy trustee of Solomon Savings Bank (hereinafter " Solomon Savings Bank") shall have the right to demand repayment of overdue loans and overdue interests as of the base date, and if repayment is delayed, it shall have no choice but to commence legal procedure."

However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the plaintiff does not bear the obligation as described in the order against the Solomon Savings Bank.

Although the Defendant asserts that “the Plaintiff bears the obligation indicated in the order against the Peung Mutual Savings and Finance Company, and the Defendant erroneously designated the Defendant and brought the instant lawsuit,” the Defendant did not have any explanation as to why he would notify the Plaintiff as the trustee in bankruptcy of the Solomon Savings Bank of Korea of its performance.

On the other hand, the existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation to the mutual savings and finance company is merely a matter between the Plaintiff and the mutual savings and finance company, and it does not need to be determined in this case.

If so, there is no obligation indicated in the order against the defendant (trustee in bankruptcy of Solomon Savings Bank). Nevertheless, as long as the defendant started legal procedure and notified the plaintiff to implement it, there is a benefit to seek confirmation against the defendant in order to eliminate the present apprehension and danger in legal status as the plaintiff.

Since the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.