1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff, who had the Defendant as the principal deposit, repaid the full amount of the secured debt for the registration of establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Defendant, which was the part of the instant real estate, as to the shares of Il Heavy Construction Co., Ltd. (1/3) among the instant real estate, but the Defendant illegally proceeded with the auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D by a successful bid. As such, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the existence of debt against the Defendant on the premise of the claim for invalidation

However, a claim seeking the confirmation that there is no secured debt already extinguished due to the exercise of a mortgage is nothing more than seeking the confirmation of past rights or legal relations, and as long as the confirmation judgment cannot be seen as an effective and appropriate means to resolve the plaintiff's rights or legal status unstable, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation, since it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation, inasmuch as the confirmation judgment cannot be seen as an effective and appropriate means to resolve the plaintiff's rights or

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da43821 Decided June 29, 1993, etc.). According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading Nos. 1 and 2 as to the real estate No. 1 and 2, the Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction to Changwon District Court Tong-won Branch E on the basis of the registration of transfer of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the portion of 1/3 of the real estate of this case, among the real estate of this case, on February 2013, and D completed the auction price in full and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage under the name of the Defendant after completing the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the portion of daily construction company among the real estate of this case.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is seeking confirmation of non-existence of the secured claim of the right to collateral already extinguished due to the exercise of the right to collateral security. Therefore, there is no benefit of confirmation in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles.

The instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed.