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 notary public against the plaintiff.

1. We examine ex officio the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation as to whether the part of the lawsuit in this case is legitimate or not.

A lawsuit for confirmation is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is infeasible and dangerous, and receiving a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). The Plaintiff’s seeking refusal of compulsory execution based on each of the instant notarial deeds is a fundamental means to resolve the dispute in an effective and timely manner. Thus, the part seeking confirmation of the existence of a debt in the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

Therefore, the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of the obligation among the lawsuit in this case is dismissed.

2. Part of the objection raised

(a) Indication of claims: To describe the grounds for the claims and the grounds for the corrected claims; and

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