1. The part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 97.5 million from the Defendant on May 17, 2013, and KRW 97.5 million on June 12, 2013.

B. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note of KRW 100 million at a face value to the Defendant as security for the said loan obligation, and drafted a notarial deed of a bill issued by a notary public C Office No. 13852, Oct. 31, 2013 (hereinafter “notarial deed of a bill of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case is legitimate ex officio.

The Plaintiff raised an objection to the exclusion of the executory power of the Notarial Deed of this case, and at the same time, sought confirmation of the absence of an obligation based on the Notarial Deed of this case.

On the other hand, a lawsuit for confirmation is allowed when there is infinite and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 2000). The ultimate purpose of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the existence of an obligation is to exclude compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s property with the title of execution. Therefore, it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to file a lawsuit against the Defendant to raise an objection, and it is not necessary to seek confirmation of the absence of an obligation based on the Notarial Deed of the Promissory Notes.

Therefore, the part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Determination on the part of the claim objection

A. On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the repayment by remitting the borrowed money after the said borrowing of money and remitting the balance of the borrowed money to KRW 5 million. As such, the Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim is on the notarial deed of the Promissory Notes.