beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s initial assertion is as indicated in the attached Form “Cause of Claim”, and on December 11, 2016, paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant on the condition that all relevant civil and criminal cases were withdrawn between the Defendant and the Defendant, which added the Plaintiff’s claim that there is no debt owed to the Defendant.
2. A lawsuit seeking confirmation as to whether a lawsuit is lawful is permitted when it is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, where the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is in present unstable and dangerous, and the judgment of confirmation is rendered.
According to the records, the court below's judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 50 million won and the interest rate of 20% per annum from August 9, 2012 to the day of full payment" (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Da16366, Nov. 22, 2012), which held that "the plaintiff shall pay the defendant 50 million won and the interest rate of 20% per annum from August 9, 2012 to the day of full payment." The plaintiff appealed from Daejeon District Court 2012Na21414 and filed an appeal from Daejeon District Court 201Na21414, May 10, 2013 at the appellate court, which held that "the plaintiff shall pay the defendant 50 million won and the interest rate of 20% per annum from August 9, 2012 to the day of full payment."
Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s obligation to seek confirmation of non-existence is an obligation arising from a decision in lieu of a final conciliation as above. The ground for the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause arising after the final and conclusive decision in lieu of the above conciliation and seeking non-performance of compulsory execution by the judgment of this case can be the direct means of resolving the dispute fundamentally and effectively. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
【The amount that the Defendant lent to the Plaintiff, as alleged in the Plaintiff, is C’s funds, and the State of the Republic of Korea Co., Ltd. provisionally seizes the loan claims against the Plaintiff (Secheon District Court Decision 2016Kadan824).