(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.02.25 2014가단80415

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) 부산지방법원 2015.02.25 2014가단80415

청구이의

Text

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 Busan District Court against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Under the underlying facts, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff as Busan District Court 9j25887 on the ground of the claim of KRW 20 million against the plaintiff. On August 3, 1999, the above court received a payment order stating that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 20 million and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the day of full payment (hereinafter "the payment order in this case"). The above payment order was delivered to the defendant on October 1, 199 and confirmed as it is on October 16, 199.

【Based upon recognition, Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 3 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. We examine whether the part of the instant lawsuit regarding the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation is lawful ex officio, based on the determination as to the legitimacy of the said claim.

The plaintiff sought non-permission of compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the defendant, and at the same time, sought confirmation of the non-existence of debt with respect to the claim that became the basis of the payment order of this case.

However, in order to eliminate the uncertainty and risk that exists in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and in order to eliminate such apprehension and risk, it is allowed to obtain a judgment of confirmation only if it is the most effective and appropriate means. If the enforcement force of the payment order of this case is excluded, the Defendant is no longer compulsory execution with the enforcement title of the payment order of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s seek to exclude the enforcement force of the instant payment order through a lawsuit demanding objection can be the direct means of resolving the dispute in an effective and urgent manner. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation that there is no debt with respect to the claim that

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for confirmation of existence of debt among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Determination on the claim for objection

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that of this case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.11.10 2020가단4927

-대전지방법원천안지원 2014.09.23 2013가단19331

-울산지방법원 2018.04.06 2017가단53387

-수원지방법원 2017.11.01 2017가단1352

-울산지방법원 2019.01.18 2018가단54066