1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground that Nonparty C, one of his husband, lent KRW 14,00,000 to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband D, but C succeeded to C’s claim upon his death, etc., against the Defendant, on January 9, 2018, Incheon District Court 2018 Ada41.

B. On January 9, 2018, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 14,00,000,000, and 15% interest per annum from January 12, 2018 to the date of full payment.” On January 11, 2018, the Plaintiff received a direct delivery of the said decision on performance recommendation and did not raise an objection, and the said decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on January 26, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). [The grounds for recognition: the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Although the purport of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim or D, the husband of the Plaintiff, did not borrow money from the Defendant or the Defendant’s husband, the Defendant received the instant order of performance recommendation by pointing out false facts, thereby seeking confirmation that there is no obligation based on the above decision of performance recommendation.

3. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

A lawsuit for confirmation of scambling must have the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is allowed when the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means in order to eliminate the present risk of rights or legal status.

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff ultimately aims at the instant lawsuit, and ultimately, the Defendant excluded compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s property as the executive title of the instant performance recommendation decision. As such, the said Plaintiff is against the court that issued the instant performance recommendation decision against the Defendant in order to achieve the above purpose.