1. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation shall be dismissed, and the claim for the extradition of the per share shall be dismissed.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On April 18, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from the Defendant, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note with the face value of KRW 50,000,000 issued by Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”); (b) issued the instant check as collateral; and (c) additionally issued a check with the face value as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant check”); and (d) the Defendant presented a payment proposal on July 20, 2013 and received the borrowed amount and repaid the borrowed amount.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, as the principal suit, seeks confirmation that there is no obligation on the check of this case, and sought delivery of the check of this case against the Defendant.

B. On July 26, 2013, the Defendant asserted that: (a) upon D’s request, the Plaintiff’s agent, issued two copies of promissory notes with the face value of KRW 100,000,000 issued by Nonparty Minedong Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Miningdong Development”); and (b) lent KRW 200,000,00 as necessary for C; and (c) at the time, the Defendant received the instant check from the said D to secure the above loan claims.

However, although the defendant presented two bills for the issuance of the above optical East Development to each payment date, the defendant did not receive the above bills due to the suspension of payment.

Accordingly, the Defendant presented the check of this case to “200,000,000 won” and the payment date to “18, 2013.18,” but did not pay the check money.

Therefore, the defendant claims against the plaintiff for the payment of KRW 200,000,000 as the check amount of this case and damages for delay.

2. Of the Plaintiff’s principal claim, the lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation for the check is recognized where obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s anxiety and risk. As such, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.