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. On November 18, 2015, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff as the obligor, and the Defendant as the obligee, a notary public signed a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the following content (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) by the rate of law firm No. 718, 2015.

Article 1 (Purpose) The creditor lent KRW 38,000,000 to the debtor on November 18, 2015, and the debtor borrowed it.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Performance) 1,000,000 won as of the end of each month from January 2016 to the end of each month shall be repaid 38 times.

When an obligor delays the repayment of principal or interest, pursuant to Article 5 (Amount of Delay Damages), damages for delay shall be paid to the obligee at the rate of 24% per annum on the delayed principal or interest.

Article 9 (Recognition and Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When an obligor and a joint guarantor fail to perform a pecuniary obligation under this contract, they recognized the absence of objection immediately even if compulsory execution has been enforced.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the part concerning the claim for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation among the lawsuit in this case is lawful ex officio.

If the plaintiff's right or legal status is present in danger and in danger of apprehension and danger, it is permitted to obtain a judgment of confirmation only if it is the most effective and appropriate means (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 200). If the execution of the notarial deed of this case is excluded, the defendant is not subject to compulsory execution with the executive title of the notarial deed of this case, so it is no longer a compulsory execution against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to seek the exclusion of enforcement power through a suit of objection, and thus, it becomes a direct means to effectively resolve disputes and effectively resolve disputes, and thus, it is the benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation that there is no obligation based on the notarial deed of this case.