(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.11.18 2015가단19268

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) 대전지방법원 2015.11.18 2015가단19268

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Although the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was extinguished by repayment of KRW 32 million as of October 5, 2004, the Defendant applied for the auction of real estate to Daejeon District Court C with respect to the land and each section of the above ground owned by the Plaintiff based on the right to collateral security, the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant for the auction of real estate based on the right to collateral security, which is based on the right to collateral security, was sought against the Defendant to confirm the absence of the loan obligation of KRW 32 million on October 5, 2004.

(A) The Plaintiff’s amendment of the purport of the claim as stated in the correction of the purport of the claim on June 22, 2015, but the Plaintiff asserts that there is no other obligation together with the loan obligation on October 5, 2004. However, the instant lawsuit is seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the loan obligation on October 5, 2004. As to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, first of all, the claim can only be filed against the scope of dispute. Thus, if the obligee does not dispute the non-existence of the obligation, the lawsuit for confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

As above, the lawsuit of this case seeks confirmation of the absence of a loan obligation against the plaintiff on October 5, 2004 against the defendant. It does not dispute that the defendant's claim against the plaintiff was extinguished by the repayment of the above loan obligation against the plaintiff.

(The auction of real estate C in Daejeon District Court is based on the defendant's right to collateral security on February 4, 2005 against each of the above sections, and the secured obligation is a loan of KRW 1220 million on February 7, 2005, and interest claim thereon). Therefore, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2021.04.27 2020가단106702

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.09.19 2017가단59652

-서울고등법원 2014.12.23 2014나2011183

-광주지방법원 2017.06.20 2017가단500551

-청주지방법원제천지원 2016.09.07 2016가단20318