1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments prior to "the allegations and judgments of the parties" in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defense of this case which the defendant alleged additionally in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. With respect to the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of the discharge of the obligation under the payment order against the Seoul Central District Court 2014 tea 291293, the Defendant may file a lawsuit seeking objection if he/she would exclude the enforcement force of the above payment order. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

On the other hand, the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the legal status of the plaintiff as the confirmation judgment in order to eliminate the uncertainty and danger when there is dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299 Decided February 25, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089 Decided November 22, 1994, etc.). Meanwhile, even if a judgment becomes final and conclusive, the res judicata effect does not extend to the relationship of rights under the substantive law which is the cause of the enforcement title, given that a debtor files a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation which is the cause of the enforcement title without filing a claim objection against the enforcement title, insofar as the purpose of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation is not solely to exclude the enforcement force of the enforcement title, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation cannot be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da108863 Decided May 9, 2013). Therefore, in a case where it is intended to challenge a claim that is a cause for enforcement title, the claim is subject to a demurrer suit.