1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s liability under the rental contract dated March 26, 2015 against the Defendant does not exist.

2...

The Plaintiff asserted that, on March 26, 2015, a siren contract (No. 1; hereinafter “the instant siren contract”) was made by arbitrarily stealing the Plaintiff’s name, and sought confirmation against the Defendant that there was no obligation to the Plaintiff against the Defendant based on the instant siren contract.

If, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a pecuniary obligation, the plaintiff, who is the debtor, has made a claim by specifying the facts causing the occurrence of the obligation first, the defendant, who is the creditor, shall bear the burden of assertion and proof as to the facts

On the other hand, the defendant, along with his assertion that the plaintiff prepared and gave the instant siren contract, presented the instant siren contract as No. 1, and did not prove any proof as to the occurrence of the obligation.

In addition, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the whole pleadings, ① the Plaintiff’s pilot C was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as of December 13, 2018 on the ground that he/she forged the instant siren contract and used it, and around that time, the said summary order became final and conclusive. ② On March 7, 2015, he/she installed a food washing machine on the fourth floor of Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City. The said place was a place without any relation with the Plaintiff. ③ The E bank account under the Plaintiff’s name appears to have been the account of lending the Plaintiff’s name. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant cannot be said to exist in the instant siren contract, and the Defendant’s interest is also asserted.

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.