logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.08.12 2020가단6787
채무부존재확인의 소송
Text

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract prior to the issuance of the instant securities by D and E, and thus cannot guarantee the obligation to recover insurance commission related to the instant contract with the instant securities, and thus, sought confirmation against the Defendant as to the absence of an insurance claim based on the instant securities against F.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate such apprehensions and risks, and therefore, the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation is a person likely to cause apprehensions and risks in the legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and there is a benefit of confirmation against such defendant.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 197, etc.). Also, the other party who denies one’s own rights or legal status asserts the rights or legal relations with a third party that cannot be incompatible with one’s own assertion and seek confirmation only on the ground that the other party’s rights or legal relations with the third party are nonexistent. Even if a judgment is rendered in favor of the other party in the lawsuit of confirmation, the judgment does not confirm one’s own rights in relation to the other party, but does not affect the third party, and thus, the lawsuit of non-existence cannot serve as a valid and appropriate means to resolve risks existing in one’s own rights or legal status, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da26131, Oct. 12, 1995). We examine this case’s health room, even if the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted, it is effective against F, a third party.

arrow