1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall enter the attached list in the plaintiff.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by public notice) of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. The lawsuit for partial rejection of the judgment is permitted when it is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, where the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is currently unstable and dangerous, and the judgment of confirmation is rendered.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 97Da54024 delivered on September 17, 199, 66Da231 delivered on April 6, 1966, etc.). In the event that the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the existence of the secured obligation based on the contract as to the right to collateral security and seeks cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da54024 delivered on September 17, 1999; 66Da231 delivered on April 6, 1966), seeking cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the ground that there is no secured obligation, the Plaintiff

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640 delivered on April 11, 200). The Plaintiff asserted that there is a benefit in seeking confirmation of existence of obligation because the Defendant, in collaboration with a third party, has a “restability” to prepare and hold the Plaintiff’s debt certificate without permission. However, the aforementioned circumstance alone alone does not lead to the existence of “construe risk” for the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.