1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for confirmation of non-existence of a claim shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's law firm against the plaintiff.

1. On the other hand, the Plaintiff seeking non-permission of compulsory execution based on the notarial deed as stated in the Disposition No. 2, and at the same time seeking confirmation of non-existence of the obligation based on the above notarial deed.

An ex officio, a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the legal status of the plaintiff as a confirmation judgment to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable and dangerous. Thus, even though a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought to seek implementation, it is not a final solution of the dispute, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). It is sufficient to dispute with the principal claimant's objection suit in order to achieve the purpose of the plaintiff who seeks to exclude the executory power of the notarial deed of this case. The method is the most effective and final method to resolve the dispute surrounding the notarial deed of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Therefore, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of non-existence of the obligation indicated in the Notarial Deed separately from the primary claim.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of non-existence of obligation is unlawful.

2. A lawsuit raising an objection on the ground that the notarial deed mentioned in Paragraph (2) of the Disposition No. 2 prepared using a certificate of the personal seal impression, etc. was invalid since the Plaintiff did not know whether to prepare a notarial deed at the time when the certificate of the personal seal impression was delivered, etc.

3. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act);