logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.12 2017가단5227144
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 73,423,30 in relation to the performance guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter “instant performance guarantee insurance contract”) dated June 25, 2014. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant performance guarantee insurance contract did not exist under the performance guarantee insurance contract (hereinafter “instant performance guarantee contract”) by exercising its right to terminate the contract, etc. and sought confirmation thereof. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. The lawsuit for confirmation is permitted only when there is an apprehension and danger existing in the rights or legal status and being judged by the court of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute. In case where the creditor files a lawsuit against the debtor for performance and the debtor files a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the creditor while the lawsuit is in progress, even if the claim is different from the purport of the lawsuit, the debtor may argue that the creditor does not have a claim against the debtor by seeking a judgment of dismissal of the claim in the performance lawsuit, so there is no benefit to seek confirmation that there is no obligation against the creditor separately.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22246 Decided July 24, 201). According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 as to the instant case, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for performance of the instant obligation based on the instant performance guarantee insurance contract with the Seoul Central District Court 2017Gadan97034 Decided November 10, 2017, and the Plaintiff served a duplicate of the suit for the said performance on November 20, 2017. However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 1, 2017, and the guaranteed obligation based on the instant performance guarantee insurance contract is the guaranteed obligation based on the instant performance guarantee contract.

arrow