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 defendant's Suwon District Court against the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Around June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for construction works to build a new building on the ground D in Sungsung-si (hereinafter “instant construction works”) with the construction cost of KRW 240,00,000 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff settled the construction cost under the instant construction contract with the Defendant as KRW 90,000,000, and prepared a certificate of loan with a loan equivalent to the above construction cost and delivered it to the Defendant.

C. Based on the above loan loan certificate, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff to the Suwon District Court 2016 tea18, and “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 90,000,000 won with the interest of 15% per annum from January 16, 2016 to the day of full payment, the day following the delivery date of the payment order.” The above payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was finalized around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation, we examine ex officio whether this part of the lawsuit is legitimate.

A lawsuit for confirmation is permitted only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment in order to eliminate anxietys and risks that exist in the Plaintiff’s right or legal status and in order to eliminate such apprehensions and risks (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 2000). The ultimate purpose of this part of the lawsuit is to achieve the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of existence of obligations is to exclude compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s property with the title of execution of the instant payment order, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit for objection against the Defendant in order to achieve this purpose is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status apprehensions and risks.