2. Defendant B’s Plaintiff

A. We examine the legality of the lawsuit on the part of the claim for the confirmation of non-existence of an obligation ex officio.

A lawsuit for confirmation is allowed only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status’s apprehensions and risks (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 2000). The ultimate purpose of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the absence of an obligation based on the Notarial Deed is to achieve through the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the absence of an obligation based on the Notarial Deed is to exclude compulsory execution on the Plaintiff’s property with Defendant B’s title as the title of execution. Thus, to achieve this purpose, the Plaintiff’s filing a lawsuit of objection against the Defendant B is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal apprehensions and risks, and the Plaintiff actually seeks against the Defendant B not to enforce compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed.

Therefore, there is no benefit to confirm this part of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of the obligation based on the Notarial Deed of this case.

B. Determination 1 on the part of the claim objection) The plaintiff is a person in a marital relationship with E, and Defendant B is a person who lends money to E.

B) On November 8, 2017, E prepared a letter of proxy with the Plaintiff’s certificate of the personal seal impression issued by using the certificate of the Plaintiff’s seal impression held in the office on behalf of the Plaintiff and signed and sealed the Plaintiff on the same day with Defendant B’s loan 19,80,000, interest rate of February 20, 2018, and 25% with the due date, and entered the instant Notarial Deed in the joint and several surety column, and signed and sealed the Plaintiff as the joint and several surety’s agent on November 8, 2017.