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 plaintiffs' remaining parts against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 20, 2010, Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) contracted the remodeling work of the F Hospital located in the Gu and America from the medical corporation D, and thereafter subcontracted to Nonparty G the new installation work during the said construction (hereinafter “instant subcontract”), and Plaintiff A jointly and severally guaranteed the payment obligation of the said subcontracted work.
B. Around April 2012, the Plaintiffs prepared a letter of performance to the G that payment of KRW 44.9 million of the instant subcontract construction cost by July 2012, and issued and issued a promissory note in KRW 44.9 million.
C. On May 11, 2012, G transferred the instant subcontract construction cost claim and promissory note claim amounting to KRW 44.9 million to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiffs of the assignment of the said claim via content-certified mail around 15th of the same year.
The Defendant filed a payment order against the Plaintiffs seeking the above KRW 44.9 million with this Court Order No. 2012 tea34198 and delay damages therefor, and received the payment order as above (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on May 31, 2012. The above payment order was served on the Plaintiffs on June 15, 2012, but became final and conclusive on June 30, 2012 due to the Plaintiffs’ lack of objection.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1-1 to Eul 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Ex officio determination on the part of the claim for confirmation of the duplicate of the obligation in the lawsuit in this case pertaining to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation of the duplicate of the obligation in this case is permissible when it is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, where the plaintiff's right or legal status is in danger and is rendered a judgment of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 2000). However, the purpose of the claim against the defendant for confirmation of the existence of the obligation in this case against the defendant is the defendant's property with the payment order as the title