2...

On December 7, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 11,00,000 to the deceased C (the deceased on December 6, 2014). The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant B, who was de facto in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased C at the time of the said lending, guaranteed the net C’s above loan obligation, and sought confirmation of the existence of the Plaintiff’s above loan obligation against the Defendant B.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in a case where the plaintiff's legal status is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehensions and risks when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous, and a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought to claim performance despite the fact that the plaintiff's legal status is not a final solution of a dispute, and thus there is no benefit in confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41153 Decided July 10, 2008). In this case, the Plaintiff’s seeking the performance of the obligation to return a loan against the deceased’s heir, the principal debtor, or seeking the confirmation of the existence of the net C’s loan obligation against the Defendant B, the principal debtor, cannot be a valid and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s right or legal status’s apprehension or risk existing in the Plaintiff’s legal status. Thus, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, in the transfer of the above deposit claim against Defendant B, the deceased C would have withdrawn the above deposit while transferring the above deposit claim to Defendant B, and would have repaid the deceased C’s loan obligation to the Plaintiff, and that Defendant B would have claimed against Defendant B the transfer of the above deposit claim that he received from the deceased C.

However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion on April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff has already been the Defendant.