채무부존재확인
1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant on March 27, 2015 does not exist.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation against the Defendant under the above loan contract, since the Plaintiff’s name was misappropriation of the Plaintiff’s name and concluded a loan contract with the Defendant on March 27, 2015.
On March 27, 2015, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff entered into a loan contract on March 27, 2015 and paid KRW 3,000,000, the plaintiff bears the responsibility for the above loan.
2. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a monetary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the fact that the legal relationship
(Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 Decided March 13, 1998). The evidence Nos. 1 (a monetary loan contract) that corresponds to the fact that the Defendant lent KRW 3,00,000 to the Plaintiff on March 27, 2015, cannot be used as evidence since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the evidence of the evidence Nos. 2 through 7 (including the serial number). There is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had concluded a loan contract on March 27, 2015.
3. Accordingly, according to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant on March 27, 2015 does not exist, and as long as the Defendant asserted the existence of the above obligation, the Plaintiff has a benefit to verify the absence of the above obligation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is justified.