1. That there is no liability for repair costs due to the accident of the motor vehicles listed in the attached Table to the plaintiff's defendant.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a self-vehicle damage security contract with the owner, etc. of the attached Table attached hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “instant vehicle”).

The Defendant, while repairing the instant vehicles destroyed by the accident that occurred on the date of the relevant accident in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant accident”), calculated the repair cost as the repair cost for the relevant Defendant’s calculation (hereinafter “Defendant’s calculation repair cost”). On behalf of the owner, etc., the Plaintiff, who is the insurer of the instant vehicle, paid only the repair cost for the relevant Plaintiff’s calculation repair cost (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s calculation repair cost”).

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The plaintiff and the defendant did not have a direct legal relationship.

The defendant is paid the repair cost calculated by the defendant from the owner, etc. of the instant vehicle that requested repair of the instant vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant does not become a party in the lawsuit of this case, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation of simple confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate infeasible, dangerous, and danger in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.

In addition, the defendant in a lawsuit for confirmation may cause uneasy in the legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and again, he/she shall be a person who has asserted conflicting interests with the legal interests of the plaintiff and, if so, has the benefit of confirmation against such defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 1991). Accordingly, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant is the owner, etc. of the vehicle in