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 District Court of Chuncheon against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C is the Plaintiff’s mother, and the Defendant is a creditor who lends money to C.

B. On February 15, 2014, C drafted to the Defendant a certificate of borrowed money (hereinafter “certificate of borrowed money in this case”) with “the borrowed money amounting to KRW 80 million, due date for payment, no interest agreement exists on December 31, 2015, the debtor C, and the Plaintiff, a joint and several surety,” and the Defendant’s joint and several surety contract with the Plaintiff.

C. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff and C for a payment order stating that “The Plaintiff and C jointly and severally filed with the Defendant for a payment order of KRW 80,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the payment order was served to the day of complete payment.” On February 4, 2016, the said court issued the payment order with the above content (hereinafter “instant payment order”). On the 12th of the same month, C received each of them (the payment order with the Plaintiff is also received) and confirmed as it is.

On March 11, 2016, based on the instant payment order, the Defendant filed an application for property specification against the Plaintiff with the Seoul Northern District Court 2016Kao780, which was based on the instant payment order, and the procedure is currently in progress upon the decision to specify the property on April 1, 2016.

E. In filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff applied for the suspension of compulsory execution based on the instant payment order as the court 2016Kadan10021, and received a decision to suspend compulsory execution until the instant judgment was rendered on August 23, 2016.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A from 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant a non-permission of compulsory execution based on the instant payment order, and at the same time, sought confirmation that there was no obligation against the Defendant based on the instant loan instrument.

ex officio, the plaintiff.