beta
Text
1. The part of the plaintiff's lawsuit demanding the confirmation of existence of an obligation shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant's notary public C. against the plaintiff
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As of January 21, 2014, the instant Notarial Deed was prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
The main contents of the notarial deed of this case are as follows.
Article 1 (Loan of Money) The Defendant lent KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff on January 21, 2014, and the Plaintiff borrowed this.
Article 2 (Period and Method of Repayment) From February 1, 2014 to May 15, 2015, five million won shall be paid each month.
Article 3 (Interest) Interest shall be 30% per annum.
Article 6 (Loss of Benefit of Time) If the Plaintiff falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Plaintiff shall, as a matter of course, lose the benefit of time as to the obligation for the borrowed money, and shall immediately repay all of the remainder of the obligation, even without any notification or peremptory notice otherwise
1,
2. (Omission)
3. When the plaintiff delays the payment of principal and interest;
B. The Defendant seized the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff with the title of execution.
C. D is the defendant's children, E is the defendant's wife, and F is the child of the defendant.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 2, and the purport of whole pleading
2. The lawsuit seeking confirmation of the part of the claim for confirmation of the existence of an obligation is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is in imminent danger and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means through which the dispute is resolved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5640, Apr. 11, 200). The ultimate purpose of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the existence of an obligation among the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is to exclude compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s property with the title of execution. As such, it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to file a lawsuit against the Defendant to achieve the aforementioned objective, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of an obligation based on the instant authentic deed, and thus, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation
3. Part of the objection raised
A. The notarial deed of this case