beta
창원지방법원 2017.03.23 2016나51303

채무부존재확인

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., from 4th to 19th (k) of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., from 4th to 15th of the judgment of the court of first instance (k) as follows, and ii) is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the statement

B. On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming for the cost of repairing the defects of the instant real estate with C as the Defendant under Tong Young-gu 2014Kadan6823. On October 20, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant (C) shall pay to the Plaintiff (A) 10,925,000 won with 5% per annum from June 28, 2014 to October 20, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed against it and appealed as Changwon District Court 2015Na35786, but the appellate court rendered a judgment of the first instance court, including the claim of the Plaintiff (A) expanded or reduced in the appellate trial on February 8, 2017, as follows. The Defendant (C) declared to the Plaintiff (A) a judgment that: (a) the amount of KRW 10,925,000 and interest calculated at the rate of KRW 5% per annum from June 28, 2014 to February 8, 2017; and (b) the amount of interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant related judgment”); and (c) the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits does not have any interest in confirmation.

B. The lawsuit of confirmation 1 is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is infinite and dangerous, and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute. In addition, seeking confirmation that the mortgagee of a right to collateral security does not have any obligation to collateral security based on the contract, and seeking cancellation of the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security.