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 notary public against the plaintiff.

1. Under the business agreement with the Defendant, the representative director of the said company, the Plaintiff, who served as the head of the company D (hereinafter “instant company”), the Plaintiff was in charge of managing the said company’s funds by the personal account. On March 2014, disputes arose between the Defendant and the Defendant as a matter of embezzlement of the company’s funds.

Then, on April 21, 2014, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant lent KRW 13,644,00 to the Plaintiff, and the instant Notarial Deed was drawn up between May 21, 2014 to April 16, 2015, stating that the Plaintiff shall repay in installments the amount of KRW 1,137,00,000 from May 201 to April 2015.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a complaint from the Defendant on the grounds of occupational embezzlement. However, the evidence that most of the Defendant’s assertion of embezzlement was paid as wages of temporary agency workers or paid for the company is submitted, and the complainant’s statement is not consistent and evidence is insufficient. Thus, the Plaintiff was issued a non-prosecution disposition on December 3, 2014.

【Grounds for Recognition】 The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the legitimacy of the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuit in this case, we examine whether the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation in this case is lawful ex officio.

If the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is present in danger and in danger of apprehension and danger, it is permissible to obtain a judgment of confirmation only in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 200). However, if the executory power of the notarial deed of this case is excluded, compulsory execution based on the title of execution of the notarial deed of this case is impossible. As such, seeking exclusion of the executory power of the notarial deed of this case through a claim objection suit becomes the direct means of resolving the dispute effectively, and thus, seeking confirmation that there is no monetary obligation that forms the basis of the notarial deed of this case, separately, is sought.