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

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. As to the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation, we examine whether the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation in this case is legitimate ex officio.

A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine a lawsuit for confirmation when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable in danger, and thus, it is not a final solution of the dispute and there is no benefit of confirmation because it is not a final solution of the dispute.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). The Plaintiff seeks against the Defendant a notary public’s refusal of compulsory execution based on an executory notarial deed (hereinafter “notarial deed”) No. 464 of 2015 against our law firm (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) and sought confirmation of the non-existence of debt related to the said notarial deed.

The ultimate purpose of the Plaintiff’s ultimate goal to achieve the instant lawsuit is to exclude the executory power of the instant authentic deed, and it is sufficient to file a lawsuit of demurrer, and it is the most effective and final method to resolve disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant surrounding the instant authentic deed.

Therefore, apart from the lawsuit of objection of this case, the plaintiff has no interest in seeking confirmation of non-existence of the obligation indicated in the Notarial Deed. Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case claiming confirmation of non-existence of the obligation is unlawful.

2. As to the part of the claim objection

A. Although the Defendant did not lend money to the Plaintiff, the Defendant prepared the instant notarial deed upon the Defendant’s demand as to the Defendant’s intimidation telephone, the Plaintiff’s family members, and its supporters, and the Defendant was aware of such circumstances. As such, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant had been paying the amount equivalent to the Defendant’s expenses.