1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part concerning the confirmation of the existence of an obligation against the Defendant and the filing of an objection against the claim against the Defendant Song Agricultural Cooperative, respectively.

1. Whether a lawsuit filed to confirm the existence of an obligation against the defendant Orsong Agricultural Cooperative and objection to the claim is legitimate;

A. We examine ex officio the claim for the confirmation of existence of the obligation among the instant lawsuit and whether the part of the claim objection is lawful.

B. First, with respect to the legitimacy of the part of the lawsuit to which the objection is raised, the defendant of the lawsuit to which the objection is raised is entitled to apply for compulsory execution on behalf of the creditor, succession or other cause on behalf of the creditor.

However, under the premise that Defendant Orong Agricultural Cooperative transferred its claim against the Plaintiff to the Defendant Orong Agricultural Cooperative, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant Orong Agricultural Cooperative to refuse compulsory execution based on an executory payment order against the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant Orong Agricultural Cooperative cannot be deemed as a person who can apply for compulsory execution on behalf of the obligee or the obligee due to the above executory payment order against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the part of the objection against Defendant Orsong Agricultural Cooperative is unlawful as it is against a person who is not qualified as a party.

C. Next, as to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation of the existence of a debt, the Plaintiff asserted against the Plaintiff of the Cheongju District Court 2013j. 2013j. 1962 against the Plaintiff, and sought a non-permission of compulsory execution based on the above payment order against the Defendant Orong Agricultural Cooperative and sought confirmation of the non-existence of the debt.

However, in a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights is recognized only when there is infinite risk in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and the removal of such unstable risk against the defendant is the most effective and appropriate.