1. The Plaintiff’s notary public against the Defendant, No. 499, Nov. 30, 201, No. 2011.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

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

3. In addition to the authentic deed obligation as indicated in the Disposition, the Plaintiff is able to have another claim document that the Plaintiff was unaware of, and thus, the Defendant as the obligee and the Plaintiff as the obligor are additionally demanding confirmation of the absence of all obligations that the Plaintiff considered as the obligor.

The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for false confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to the lawsuit, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as a confirmation judgment to eliminate the risks of apprehensions when the Plaintiff’s legal status is at risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). In the case of a notarial deed as indicated in the disposition, since at least the substance and existence are confirmed as evidence A1, the validity of the notarial deed can be prevented due to the confirmation of this judgment. On the other hand, even if the Plaintiff’s statement is actively referred to as the date of pleading, it is difficult to view that the parties have a dispute or dispute as of the date of pleading. Furthermore, even if the judgment consistent with the purport of the claim sought by the Plaintiff, so long as the appearance of the corresponding debt is not

Thus, it is unlawful to seek confirmation of the absence of non-existence of an unspecified debt, apart from the Plaintiff’s subjective uncertainty, as it lacks the benefit of confirmation.