1. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The plaintiff asserts that D is the representative of the rental house owned by the plaintiff and KRW 50 million presumed to have been deducted from the tenant with the deposit money, rent, etc., was deposited into the passbook account in the name of the defendants. In order to secure evidence as to D's arrival, the above KRW 50 million is sought to confirm the fact that D's arrival was deposited into the Defendants' passbook account.

An ex officio determination of whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of facts, and an action for confirmation may be brought only when the judgment is valid and adequate to eliminate the risk or instability of the legal status of the parties, and a mere assertion of facts cannot be subject to a lawsuit for confirmation of facts.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da25413 delivered on January 8, 1991). However, the issue of whether D deposited money in the account under the name of the Defendants is merely a mere factual issue, and even if it is determined by judgment, D’s criminal act is not finalized or the above deposited money is not returned to the Plaintiff. Thus, seeking confirmation cannot be deemed an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal position’s risks or unstableness.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking confirmation of the fact that the amount of KRW 50 million presumed to have been deducted was deposited in the Defendants' passbook account is unlawful because it is improper for lack of confirmation interest. Thus, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.