1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The lawsuit for confirmation of the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case is permitted when there is an apprehension or risk existing in the rights or legal status and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute. In case where the creditor files a lawsuit against the debtor for performance against the debtor and the debtor files a subsequent lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the creditor while the lawsuit is in progress, even if the purport of the lawsuit is different from that of the lawsuit, the debtor may argue that the creditor does not have a claim against the debtor by seeking a judgment of dismissal of the claim in the performance lawsuit. Thus, there is no benefit to seek confirmation that there is no obligation against the creditor separately.

(2) On March 27, 201, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant on July 24, 2001 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22246, Mar. 13, 201). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff asserted that the obligation to accumulate the special repair reserve under the former Rental Housing Act is recognized only until November 2006, when the lease term of the apartment of this case expires, and that there is no obligation to accumulate the special repair reserve under the former Rental Housing Act, and that there is no dispute between the parties to the instant lawsuit and the competent court to seek the payment of the special repair reserve under the former Rental Housing Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2246, Jul. 24, 2001).

Therefore, by seeking a judgment of dismissal in the above performance lawsuit filed by the defendant, the defendant exceeds 200,59,573 won against the plaintiff.