beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. B obtained a loan from the Defendant on December 5, 2002 under the Plaintiff’s joint and several sureties, and as of November 20, 2015, the above loan is KRW 17,941,00.
B. On November 14, 2008, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by Cheongju District Court 2008Haak203, Cheongju District Court 2008, Cheongju District Court 2008, Cheongju District Court 2008, 2003, and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on May 22, 2009.
C. On April 19, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim against the Jeju District Court 2013 Ghana5285, and sentenced the said court to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 5,264,327 won and 5,035,629 won with 18% interest per annum from June 13, 2003 to the day of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
[Ground of recognition] We examine whether the lawsuit in this case is legitimate or not, ex officio, as to the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleading.
However, in a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status and the apprehension and risk (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45140, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the judgment became final and conclusive is as seen earlier, even if the decision becomes final and conclusive and conclusive under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is exempted from the obligor’s obligation, this does not mean that the enforcement title with respect to the exempted obligation naturally loses its effect, but is merely an substantial reason to exclude enforcement force through a lawsuit for objection (see Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438, Sept. 16, 2013). The confirmation of exemption is sought by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit in this case.