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 plaintiff's claim for objection is dismissed.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not borrow KRW 30 million from the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from C and repaid all. The Defendant seeks confirmation of the refusal of compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed and the existence of the obligation based on a monetary loan agreement as of March 6, 2015, as stated in the claim on March 6, 2015, by using the documents attached to the certified judicial scrivener’s office. The Plaintiff forged the instant notarial deed (such as KRW 30 million, maturity of payment, interest rate of KRW 5, June 5, 2015, interest rate of KRW 24%, Defendant, Defendant, Plaintiff, and joint and several sureties) and obtained a seizure and collection order (this Court Decision 2016TTT 52165, 2016 other 53236).

2. We examine ex officio the part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation among the instant lawsuit, and the lawsuit for the confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment in order to eliminate the existing apprehension and risk in rights or legal status. However, in the event that the Plaintiff files a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the existence of an obligation in the instant lawsuit to exclude compulsory execution with the title of title, the claim for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the existing apprehension and risk, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the claim portion of the objection, the plaintiff borrowed 30 million won from the defendant through C and prepared the Notarial Deed of this case is acknowledged, according to the following: Gap 1-2, Eul 1-11 (including each number), Eul 1-11 (including each number), Eul's testimony, and the whole pleadings.

On the contrary, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant forged the instant notarial deed.

The statement of Gap evidence No. 3 is alone about the fact that the above money was lent to the defendant or that the plaintiff paid the above money to the plaintiff.