beta
Text
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 remaining claims are dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. As to the claim for confirmation of existence of an obligation, a lawsuit for confirmation shall be permitted in cases where there is a benefit to immediately determine the existence of an obligation between the parties to the dispute as to the present rights or legal relations. If a claim for performance can be claimed, it is difficult to seek confirmation of the existence of an obligation separately because it does not have any particular effectiveness, and it cannot be a valid and appropriate means in light of the
shall not be permitted as such.
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da6757 delivered on July 23, 1991). However, under the premise that there is no secured debt due to the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case established on the instant real estate under the premise that there is no secured debt due to the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case, and sought the confirmation of the existence of an obligation as above, and thus, it shall
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on this part is unlawful.
2. As to the request for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring district
A. The Plaintiff asserted 1) The Plaintiff: (a) transferred the amount to the Defendant whenever the former spouse purchased a lawsuit from the Defendant during the period from August 21, 2014 to May 18, 2015; and (b) there was no unpaid purchase price; (c) around May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the Defendant on May 14, 2015, due to insufficient purchase price in the process of purchasing the instant real estate; and (d) repaid the Plaintiff in full. Nevertheless, the Defendant, along with D, received the establishment registration of the instant collateral security agreement from the Plaintiff on July 20, 2015, by threatening the Plaintiff to find the Plaintiff and to make a threat to the unpaid value; and (e) the Defendant received the establishment registration of the instant collateral security agreement from the Plaintiff on July 20, 2015. Therefore, there was no obligation to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant real estate.