1. The case of this case by the Appointor C shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant of the plaintiff (designated parties) and the remaining designated parties.

1. In the case of the designated party C’s lawsuit, the said designated party’s claim for the confirmation that the Defendant Company did not have any corresponding liability as stated in the attached Table against the Defendant Company is asserted, since the said designated party’s contract for subscription to the mobile communications service and the contract for the installment of the mobile device were cancelled by fraud, the said designated party’s claim for the confirmation that the Defendant Company did not have any corresponding liability as to the Defendant Company. As such, the Defendant Company’s defense that the said designated party did not have any interest in the confirmation

On the other hand, a lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger, and the apprehension and risk. Thus, filing a lawsuit for confirmation even though it is possible to file a lawsuit for performance is not a final solution of a dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da36215 delivered on July 14, 2005, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in the evidence No. 12-2 of the evidence No. 12-2, the above selected party can be acknowledged as having paid all of the cost of using mobile communications services and the cost of selling mobile devices to the Defendant company. The above designated party can claim the return of the cost of using mobile communications services and the cost of selling mobile devices, which was paid to the Defendant company by cancelling the contract for subscription to mobile communications services and the contract for selling mobile devices by fraudulent intent. Thus, the confirmation judgment against the Defendant company cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate anxietys and risks in the rights or legal status asserted by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the lawsuit by the above Selection is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. The plaintiff (appointed party) and the plaintiff.