청구이의
1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.
2. The Defendants’ assertion against the Plaintiff.
1. ex officio, the part of the confirmation of existence of an obligation is permissible where the action for confirmation is the most effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s existing apprehension and danger in the Plaintiff’s legal status.
In the instant case, seeking the exclusion of the executory power of the judgment stated in Paragraph 2 of the Disposition is a direct means for the effective and appropriate settlement of the dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary to seek confirmation of the existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendants based on the above judgment.
Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of existence of the above obligation is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
2. Part of the objection raised
A. The fact that Defendant B filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for damages against the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 100 million and delay damages therefrom” was sentenced to the judgment as indicated in Paragraph (2) of the Disposition, which states that “The Plaintiff filed an appeal, but the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and the fact that the Plaintiff fully repaid the Defendant the principal and interest of the obligation under the above judgment to the Defendant on November 30, 2018 that the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest of KRW 122,602,441 to the Defendant is not disputed
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above judgment should not be permitted.
(b) Description of claims against Defendant C: To be indicated in the attached Form. 2) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment by service (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
3. In conclusion, the part of the plaintiff's confirmation of the existence of an obligation among the lawsuit of this case is inappropriate as there is no benefit of confirmation. Thus, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the remaining claims.