logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.17 2016가합12569
확인의 소
Text

1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Under the plaintiffs' joint and several sureties's assertion, the money loan contract (hereinafter "loan 10 million won") made between the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter "National Bank") and C as of June 4, 1997 was not accompanied by KRW 10,000 in accordance with the Stamp Tax Act. Thus, the national bank of this case under the monetary loan contract of this case did not attach KRW 10,000 to the money loan contract of this case. Thus, on November 30, 1999, the national bank of this case filed a lawsuit (Seoul Northern Northern District Court 99Na18470) seeking the payment of the guaranteed debt against the plaintiff B, who is a joint and several sureties under the monetary loan contract of this case, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment on January 11, 200. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

and therefore seek confirmation of invalidity against the defendant.

2. The lawsuit to confirm the legitimacy of the lawsuit by the plaintiffs is not necessarily limited to the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, but can also be subject to the legal relationship between the plaintiff and a third party or between the third party. However, according to such legal relationship, the confirmation of such legal relationship is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship by making it the object of confirmation in order to eliminate the risk unrefinites existing in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship by the judgment of confirmation between the plaintiff and the defendant. In addition, it is

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1570, May 12, 2016). First, as to the legitimacy of Plaintiff A’s lawsuit, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff A has the interest in seeking confirmation of the existence of grounds for illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act because Plaintiff A may receive a complaint from a national bank due to defamation due to his/her own diskettes demonstration, and that it is necessary to find out the existence of grounds for illegality under Article 310 of the Criminal Act. In addition, due to the monetary loan agreement of this case, Plaintiff A’s rights or legal status.

arrow