채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. Promissory Notes No. 120,000,000 won at a face value indicated as the joint issuer and Nonparty C with the instant promissory note No. notarial deed and Nonparty C were issued on April 29, 201 by the Defendant as the addressee.
(2) On the same day, a promissory note No. 100, stating that C is the Plaintiff’s agent, was written with a promissory note No. 100 to the effect that, in the event that the payment of the said promissory note is delayed, there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted (hereinafter “notarial deed of the Promissory Notes”).
B. On November 6, 2013, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the Plaintiff’s real estate based on the Notarial Deed of the Promissory Notes in this case, and rendered a ruling to commence the auction on November 7, 2013. However, the ruling to commence the auction was revoked on February 19, 2014.
In other words, while the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction for corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff and the procedure was in progress, the Defendant’s exercise of the right by the Defendant, a creditor on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes, and a dispute between the Plaintiff, the debtor, is continuing, by asserting the Plaintiff’s wife’s ownership of the subject matter and filing a lawsuit of objection against a third party under the Notarial Deed of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not have met only once with the Plaintiff, and only is between Nonparty C and son, who is the Plaintiff’s seat.
C, however, without the Plaintiff’s delegation or consent, issued the Promissory Notes in the name of the Plaintiff, followed the process of preparing a notarial deed granting executory power to the Promissory Notes in the instant case, and carried out compulsory execution based thereon.
Therefore, the plaintiff does not have authority to eliminate the existing legal uncertainty.