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 defendant's notary public against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the legality of the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case, ex officio, as to whether the part of claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation is legitimate.

A lawsuit for confirmation is allowed only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment in order to eliminate anxietys and risks that exist in the rights or legal status of the plaintiffs, and in order to eliminate such apprehensions and risks (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 2000). However, if a notary public of November 30, 2016, which was made by the defendant, the debtor corporation, the plaintiff corporation A (hereinafter "Plaintiff corporation"), and the plaintiff B, the joint guarantor, excludes the executory power of a notarized deed No. 489, Nov. 30, 2016 (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case"), a compulsory execution against the No. 489, 2016, a deed of this case, the title of execution, is not the defendant. Thus, seeking to exclude executory power through a lawsuit of objection, is a direct means to resolve disputes effectively and efficiently, and it cannot be said that there is no interest in a loan to seek confirmation that there was no debt that became the basis of the notarial deed of this case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da63509 Decided August 19, 2015). Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit claiming the existence of an obligation is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Determination as to the part of the objection raised

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1 of the parties asserted that the plaintiff company was aware of the necessity of business money, and that D, the defendant's husband, would lend KRW 100 million to the plaintiff company, and entered into a monetary loan agreement on KRW 100 million with the creditor as the defendant, and the plaintiff B jointly and severally guaranteed the above monetary loan agreement.

However, the defendant promised to transfer KRW 100 million until December 2, 2016 and did not pay it.

Therefore, this case.