1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion "Around December 24, 2008, the plaintiff borrowed KRW 123,000 from the defendant and subsequently entered into an agreement with the defendant to repay KRW 123,00,000 to the defendant (hereinafter "the agreement of this case"). On December 24, 2008, the plaintiff, based on the above facts, issued to the defendant on December 24, 2008 a promissory note with a maturity of KRW 123,00,000 (hereinafter "the promissory note of this case"), which is payable at sight (hereinafter "the Promissory note of this case"). A notary public against the Promissory Notes of this case, a notarized deed as of December 24, 2008 (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case"), which was signed by the defendant as of December 139, 208, was not a loan of KRW 123,000,000,00,000,000,000.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. Ex officio, the action for confirmation is recognized where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine by the confirmation judgment to remove the plaintiff's legal status when the plaintiff's legal status is uneasy or dangerous. If there is a final resolution of a dispute other than the action for confirmation, there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006). B.

First, with respect to the claim for confirmation of non-existence of the Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff appears to have brought this part of the lawsuit solely for the purpose of excluding the executory power of the Notarial Deed. In such a case, filing a lawsuit of demurrer against the Notarial Deed would be the most effective and final way to resolve the dispute.

(The plaintiff actually filed a separate suit for objection).