1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s cause of the Plaintiff’s claim was paid KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant on January 13, 2012

(C) The bank account in the name of C was used by the Defendant, and C transferred KRW 20,00,000 to the Plaintiff on January 13, 2012 is actually remitted by the Defendant. However, this is not the Plaintiff’s loan from the Defendant, but the Plaintiff was donated for the Plaintiff’s contribution to the Defendant. Since the Defendant is dissatisfied with this, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that there was no obligation related to KRW 20,000,000 against the Defendant.

B. The defendant's assertion is merely borrowing KRW 20,000,000 from C, and the defendant merely jointly and severally guaranteed the plaintiff's above obligation.

In other words, since the defendant did not lend KRW 20,000 to the plaintiff and did not urge the plaintiff to repay the above money, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in confirmation, and even if it is legitimate in domestic litigation, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed.

2. 본안전 항변에 관한 판단 확인의 소에 있어서는 권리보호요건으로서 확인의 이익이 있어야 하고 그 확인의 이익은 원고의 권리 또는 법률상의 지위에 현존하는 불안, 위험이 있고 그 불안, 위험을 제거함에는 피고를 상대로 확인판결을 받는 것이 가장 유효적절한 수단일 때에만 人丁된다.

The defendant alleged that the evidence Nos. 2 and 7 is Eul evidence No. 7, but the above two evidences are different as follows:

In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and the entire argument as indicated in subparagraph 3-3, the fact that there exists a loan certificate between the Plaintiff and C (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) and the fact that a total of KRW 20,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) was transferred from the bank account (D) in the name of the Plaintiff on January 13, 2012 to the bank account in the name of the Plaintiff on January 13, 2012 may be acknowledged, but, on the other hand, subparagraph 5 of the same Article.