1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for confirmation of existence of the obligation.

1. Basic facts

A. D Co., Ltd., the representative director of which the Plaintiff is the representative director (hereinafter “D”) has been awarded a contract from the Plaintiff for the new construction work of the five-story apartment on the land outside C and three parcels in the East Sea (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

During the construction of this case, the subcontractor entered into a subcontract with E.

B. The Plaintiff, while having experienced difficulties in raising funds in the construction process of the instant construction, intended to borrow KRW 300 million from the Defendant as construction funds, issued a promissory note in the attached list (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant, and then drafted the instant promissory note No. 341 from the law firm’s freedom as to the said promissory note.

C. The Defendant did not receive KRW 137,410,00 among the instant promissory notes from the Plaintiff and received KRW 27,56,280 from the said court on September 2, 2015, on the basis of the instant promissory notes certificate issued by Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015TTB16, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure and collection order of the amount until the amount reaches KRW 27,556,280 among the respective deposit claims against the Plaintiff’s head-dong Saemaul Depository, Samyang Fisheries Cooperatives, Samyang Credit Cooperatives, the old US Credit Cooperatives, and the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for the confirmation of non-existence of an obligation among the instant lawsuit, ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for the confirmation of non-existence of an obligation is examined.

In order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status in danger and the apprehension and risk, it is permissible to obtain a judgment of confirmation only when it is the most effective and appropriate means (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 200). If the executory power of the authentication of the Promissory Notes in this case is excluded, the Defendant shall be added.