logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.04.14 2016가단13184
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

On May 16, 2008, the Plaintiff was granted immunity by Jeju District Court No. 2006,551, but the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the amount of promissory notes with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gaso176961, and accordingly, was issued by the Defendant’s Jeju District Court 2015 Taso2077 and issued a collection order. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff was exempted, and thus, sought confirmation of exemption.

We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio by determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate such apprehension and danger (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45140, Jul. 23, 2015). Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, a judgment becomes final and conclusive as to the Defendant’s obligation. Even if a decision to grant immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, it does not necessarily lose the effect of executive title as to the exempted obligation as a matter of course, but it is merely an substantial reason to exclude executive title from enforcement force through a lawsuit for objection (see Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438, Sept. 16, 2013). Even if the Plaintiff seeks a confirmation of exemption from enforcement force in the lawsuit in this case, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution is eliminated from the above judgment itself.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case for which the plaintiff seeks to confirm immunity cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to remove the plaintiff's legal status unstable and risks. Therefore, there is no benefit to confirm.

In conclusion, this conclusion is followed.

arrow