beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the lower judgment is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception that the reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) using the evidence No. 1 among the grounds for recognition as “No. 1” as “No. 1 and No. 2”; and (b) citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【The Plaintiff appealed against the foregoing judgment. However, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2017Na2017878) dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 1, 2017. The Plaintiff appealed again, but the Supreme Court (No. 2017Da283271) rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on February 28, 2018.
(2) The Defendant’s lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). 2. Determination as to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit
A. (1) The legal doctrine related to a lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da68650, Feb. 9, 2007; 2006Da68667, Mar. 15, 2017; 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017). In addition, in a case where a claim is disputed whether a non-exempt claim constitutes a non-exempt claim despite the confirmation of exemption, the obligor may file a lawsuit for confirmation of exemption, but the obligor’s filing of a lawsuit for confirmation against a creditor with title to the obligation for exemption is not a way to resolve the dispute, and thus, seeking the validity of discharge of executive force based on the legal status is not a way to resolve the illegality.
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 12, 2017