The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of the obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

Busan District Court against the plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the absence of dispute between the parties or the overall purport of Gap evidence of 1 to 5, Eul evidence of 1 to 4, Byung evidence of 1 to 3, Eul evidence of 1 to 3, witness D's testimony and the whole arguments.

On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant through D (the Defendant’s work as the site manager at the E Apartment Construction Site, if the Defendant subcontracted the Hoho Construction Work, etc.) and paid KRW 8,800,000,000, excluding interest.

(2) On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant, who was unable to receive the said money from the Defendant, that the Plaintiff entrusted the Defendant with construction without knowledge of the Plaintiff’s face and left the Defendant with a view to collecting the said money. On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the construction of a new Gcafeteria located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, for KRW 20,00,000 among the construction works of a new restaurant (hereinafter “instant construction”).

The Defendant completed the instant construction after receiving favorable benefits from the Intervenor. As the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the advance payment of KRW 10,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim of construction cost under this Court 2017 Ghana50419, and “the Plaintiff” was finalized on August 25, 2017, to the effect that the Defendant would pay the Defendant KRW 11,60,000 (the instant construction cost KRW 20,000,000 for advance payment - KRW 10,000 for additional construction cost of KRW 1,60,000 for delay payment) and its delay damages.

hereinafter referred to as the "decision on performance recommendation of this case"

A) In a lawsuit seeking an ex officio determination on the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation of existence of an obligation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized where there is a dispute between the parties regarding the legal relationship subject to the lawsuit, and thereby, it is deemed that the determination by the confirmation judgment is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s concerns and risks when the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994).