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 Daegu District Court against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2, 2018, the Defendant transferred KRW 16,50,000, totaling KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s account, and KRW 16,50,000,00 on January 6, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant transfer”). (b)

The Defendant asserted that the instant transfer money is a loan, and filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order with the purport that “16,500,000 won and/or 350,000 won for delayed payment calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment.” On January 28, 2019, the payment order for the above content was issued and finalized on February 16, 2019.

hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case"

(ii) [The facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. We examine the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit in this case, ex officio, as to whether the part of the claim for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation is lawful.

A lawsuit for confirmation is allowed only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment in order to eliminate anxietys and risks existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 2000). Although the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the absence of an obligation based on the instant payment order against the Defendant, even if the judgment becomes final and conclusive, it does not immediately exclude the executory power of the instant payment order, and in order for the Plaintiff to effectively resolve the dispute, the Plaintiff shall raise an objection against the instant payment order and exclude its executory power by asserting the grounds for objection, such as the absence of a claim prior to the confirmation of the instant payment order or its subsequent claim, non-existence, non-existence, non-existence, and extinguishment. As seen in the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer, which is the most effective and appropriate means to remove existing anxietys and risks in rights or legal status.