logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.29 2019가단3768
면책확인
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case concerning the confirmation of immunity shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm C.

Reasons

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Rejection portion

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means for the defendant to receive a judgment of confirmation against the plaintiff when the plaintiff's right or legal status is in present unstable and dangerous, and the removal of such apprehension and danger.

Notwithstanding the confirmation of decision to grant immunity to a debtor in bankruptcy, where any claim is disputed whether a non-exempt claim, etc., the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in his/her rights or legal status.

However, in relation to the creditor who holds the title of debt with immunity, the debtor's filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim and seeking the exclusion of the executory power based on the effect of immunity is an effective and appropriate means to remove the existing apprehension and danger in the legal

Therefore, even in such cases, seeking the confirmation of immunity is unlawful because it is not a final resolution of dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771, Oct. 12, 2017). Meanwhile, the existence of interest in confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is subject to ex officio investigation, and the court’s ex officio determination ought to be made regardless of the party’s assertion.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

The instant lawsuit was brought for the purpose of preventing the Plaintiff from undergoing compulsory execution procedures based on the Notarial Deed by obtaining confirmation that the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was an exemption claim.

However, in relation to the creditor who has executive title, such as the authentication of this case, the objection of claim shall be filed and exempted.

arrow