1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of the existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted a notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed in the form of a law firm, “The Defendant lent KRW 25,000,000 to the Plaintiff on June 29, 2010, and the Plaintiff shall be paid in a lump sum by July 10, 2012. Interest rate shall be 7.5% per annum and damages for delay shall be 30% per annum. The notarial deed as stated in paragraph (2) of the Disposition No. 2 of the same Act (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) was drawn up by the Plaintiff to recognize compulsory execution in the event of nonperformance.

B. On January 17, 2014, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables located in the Plaintiff’s residence on the basis of the instant notarial deed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, who provided an extracurricular teaching business with the Defendant, was aware of the damage incurred by the Plaintiff’s escape, and the Defendant merely respondeded to the meaning of guaranteeing the credit to demand a notarial deed of a monetary loan contract for consumption as a collateral, and in fact borrowed money from the Defendant. Therefore, a monetary loan agreement for consumption on the notarial deed is null and void as a false declaration of agreement.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent money separate from the business by making it urgently necessary to pay money, and thereby, the instant notarial deed was prepared.

3. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the part of the claim for confirmation of non-existence of an obligation as to the lawfulness of the part of the claim for confirmation of non-existence of an obligation in this case.

A lawsuit for confirmation is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is unstable and dangerous and being rendered a judgment on confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 200). However, the ultimate purpose of the lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation of this case raised by the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s property with the title of execution.