2. On July 17, 2018, this Court has regard to cases where a request for suspension of compulsory execution is filed by this Court.

However, Plaintiff A did not obtain a loan of the above KRW 87,400,000 from the non-party partnership, and there is no loan no longer than by repaying the above loan amount of KRW 37,440,000. Thus, Plaintiff A seeks confirmation of the non-existence of the loan.

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim is based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s loan obligation seeking confirmation of non-existence.

2. Determination

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of relevant legal principles, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate anxietys, risks, and risks in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013).

Judgment

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to this case, as to the following facts: ① The defendant concluded a credit guarantee agreement with the plaintiff on April 29, 2005 and June 12, 2004 with the non-party union and guaranteed that the plaintiff Gap borrowed KRW 10 million from the non-party union on April 29, 2005, and June 12, 2004, and the plaintiff Eul jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant's claim for reimbursement against the non-party under each credit guarantee agreement; ② the defendant, who did not pay each of the above loans, subrogated the non-party union on April 30, 2010 to the non-party union on April 30, 201, ③ the defendant filed a claim for reimbursement against the plaintiffs for reimbursement of KRW 18,150,243. < Amended by Act No. 10224, Apr. 29, 201>