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 defendant shall enter the attached list in the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of a debt among the instant lawsuit is ex officio, on the ground that the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on June 3, 1993 on the real estate stated in the separate sheet by the Suwon District Court, Anyang Branch Office, which received on June 3, 1993, filed a claim for the confirmation of the existence of a debt with respect to the secured debt of the instant lawsuit, and thus, the Plaintiff’
A lawsuit for confirmation is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is infeasible and dangerous, and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute. In addition, in a case where the person who created the right to collateral security seeks to confirm that there was no obligation of collateral based on the right to collateral security, and seeks to cancel the registration of creation of the right to collateral security, seeking cancellation of the right to collateral security on the ground that there is no obligation of collateral security, is a direct means to resolve the dispute effectively and appropriately. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a benefit to confirm that there is no obligation of collateral security based on the right
(1) The part of the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, as it does not exist any benefit of confirmation.
2. As to the remaining claims
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(b) Judgment without applicable provisions of Acts (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. In conclusion, the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of the obligation among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and thus, the remaining claims are justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.