채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) concluded a contract with the Defendant for construction of a new building located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction contract”); and (b) concluded a performance guarantee insurance contract as indicated in the attached Table with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd”) as the insured regarding the said construction project on March 12, 2013.
In a lawsuit seeking the payment of the instant construction cost against the Defendant (this Court Decision 2013Da118049), the Defendant asserts that the parties to the instant construction contract were not the Plaintiff but C, and notwithstanding the absence of any defect in the new building after the completion of the construction of the said MoMoel, the Defendant filed a claim against the Seoul Guarantee Insurance for the payment of the insurance money based on the performance guarantee insurance contract on the premise that the Plaintiff was liable to repair the defect of the said building. Therefore, the Defendant sought confirmation that there was no claim for the insurance money based on the performance guarantee insurance contract of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance.
2. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.
A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, but can be the subject of the legal relationship between the plaintiff and a third party or between the third party. However, according to such legal relationship, the confirmation of such legal relationship is required to be immediately finalized by the confirmation judgment of the plaintiff and the defendant, considering the above legal relationship as the object of confirmation in order to remove the risks and apprehensions that may exist in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and it is the most appropriate means.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu21589 delivered on Nov. 23, 1990, and Supreme Court Decision 94Da23388 delivered on Nov. 8, 1994). According to the evidence No. 1, Seoul Surety Insurance Co., Ltd., as shown in the attached Form No. 1, the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.