beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The Plaintiff: (a) received a loan of KRW 10 million from the Hyundai Swiss Mutual Savings Bank around July 2004; (b) Defendant B, C, and D jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s loan obligation; (c) thereafter, Defendant B, C, and D had been declared bankrupt and granted immunity by the Suwon District Court No. 2013, 5490, 2013Hadan5490; and (d) filed a claim against the Defendants for the confirmation of exemption as stated in the purport of the claim.
[On the other hand, the above loan claims are transferred in succession, and they are the transferee of the bonds.
A) The Plaintiff was assigned to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff also sought a confirmation of discharge against the assignee of the claim in this case. This court received the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of discharge from obligation from the assignee of the claim and decided to recommend reconciliation with the purport that the Plaintiff would not enforce compulsory execution based on the above loan claim, and the decision of recommending reconciliation was finalized on December 16, 2015 between the above parties. Therefore, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.
Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendants merely merely serve as a joint and several surety for the Plaintiff, and they do not seem to have asserted against the Plaintiff at the time of the closing of argument in the instant case, and thus, there is no interest in the Plaintiff to seek confirmation of exemption against the Defendants. Furthermore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had specified the claims to seek confirmation of exemption, and even if the Plaintiff’s claim is intended to seek “the confirmation of exemption of indemnity claims against the Plaintiff when the Defendant performs a future joint and several liability,” it is merely a claim for confirmation of future legal relations, and it is difficult to view that there is a interest in seeking confirmation of exemption in advance as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case.
Thus, the plaintiff is against the defendants.