(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.05.15 2015가단1641

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.05.15 2015가단1641

채무부존재확인

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of the obligation against the Defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that around March 2001, the Plaintiff borrowed a loan of KRW 8 million (hereinafter “instant loan”).

The defendant is a company that combines the EL branch card with which the defendant acquired the claim for the loan of this case against the plaintiff of EL branch.

The Plaintiff repaid all of the instant loans by December 8, 2008, and was granted decision on immunity by December 8, 2008.

In addition, there is no fact that the plaintiff Eul guaranteed the plaintiff's above loan obligations.

Nevertheless, based on the false notarial deed against B, the defendant is proceeding such as seizure of B's benefits or payment order against B.

Therefore, the plaintiff's existence of the obligation against the defendant and the existence of the obligation against the defendant B are sought.

2. Determination:

A. According to the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation of the existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation and the record of the evidence No. 9, the Plaintiff recognized the fact that the Plaintiff was granted immunity on December 8, 2008 by this Court 2008,260, and the Defendant also recognized the fact that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant was exempted due to the aforementioned immunity.

However, immunity is effective only to exempt liability, but the debt itself is not extinguished, and the plaintiff seems to seek confirmation that the debt itself is extinguished.

It is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff extinguished the obligation to the Defendant by repaying all of the instant loans only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking confirmation that there is no debt owed to the Defendant is without merit.

B. We examine, ex officio, the part of the B’s claim for the confirmation of existence of the obligation, as to whether this part of the lawsuit is legitimate.

A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the parties, but between one of the parties and a third party or between the third parties.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.27 2017나90522

-울산지방법원 2018.11.30 2018가단51104

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.11.10 2020가단4927

-서울고등법원 2017.11.09 2016나2058247

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.02 2013가단5064161