1. The Plaintiff’s gallon card service contract for the Defendant KRW 21,236,600.

1. The plaintiff's assertion did not apply for a gallony card of the gallon department store operated by the defendant. The plaintiff's claim did not exist 21,236,600 won for the defendant's gallony card use fee liability to the defendant, and there is a benefit of confirmation because the defendant contests this.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 3, 2, and 3 of the judgment Nos. 3, 2, and 3, on December 20, 2012, an application for membership of a galgalian department store operated by the Defendant was prepared under the Plaintiff’s name, and an application for membership of a galgalgalian card was issued under the Plaintiff’s name on April 29, 2014 and an attempted balance was found to have been 24,523,150. Meanwhile, according to each of the evidence Nos. 5 and 8, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s galgalian card use the Plaintiff’s driver’s license with the Plaintiff’s license and the Plaintiff’s personal information and the card issued the Plaintiff’s name. Thus, it is difficult to acknowledge that the above recognition was established under the galgalian card use contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is the other party to the card use contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation of card use fees based on the gallon card use contract for the Defendant does not exist within the scope of unpaid debts, and there is no amount of KRW 21,236,600 claimed by the Plaintiff, and as long as the Defendant contests this, there is a benefit to confirm it.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.