(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.09.10 2019구합71630

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.09.10 2019구합71630

증서진부확인 등 청구의 소

Text

1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation among the lawsuit in this case and the part concerning the fulfillment of the disposition of fine for negligence shall be dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Whether the part of the claim for confirmation of the existence of the obligation is lawful (2020Guhap64775) filed a lawsuit against the Defendants to the effect that the Plaintiff submitted the “written complaint for interim confirmation” in this case, and that the Defendants’ obligation against the Plaintiff exists.

On the other hand, a lawsuit for interim confirmation is instituted when there is a dispute between the parties as to the existence of legal relations which are in a prior relation with the judgment of the original lawsuit, and the lawsuit for confirmation requires the interest of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The interest of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment of confirmation in order to eliminate the risks of the plaintiff's rights or legal status and the danger of apprehension (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747, Oct. 16, 1997). The plaintiff can seek the performance of monetary obligation against B for the payment of monetary obligation against B, and seeking the confirmation against the defendants is difficult to be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's rights or legal status in order to eliminate the risks existing in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Determination on the remainder of the claims (2019Guhap71630)

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff has the bonds listed in the separate sheet against the non-party B, and as to this, B was a notarial deed for a promissory note issued by him, which was signed by the notary public on April 15, 2003, No. 1146 (amount-22 million won), No. 1147 (amount-24 million won), and the notary public on October 11, 2003, No. 2906 (amount-22.5 million won), No. 2908 (amount-2.5 million won), and No. 2908 (amount-20 million won) (each of the above notarial deeds).

. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

참조판례

-대법원 1997. 10. 16. 선고 96다11747 전원합의체 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2021.04.27 2020나112087

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.28 2021가합523452

-창원지방법원진주지원 2020.06.19 2020가단30671

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.13 2018가단55471

-부산지방법원동부지원 2012.02.10 2011가합4406