근저당권의 피담보채무에 관한 부존재확인의 소에 관한 검토 - 대법원 2013. 8. 23. 선고 2012다17585 판결을 소재로 -

A writer is a position in which the so-called principle of the supplementnature to the lawsuit of the affirmation lawsuit of a debt non-existence ofa flexible mortgage does not need to be applied through this paper, andthe principle of supplement nature itself must be discarded fundamentally. Although the principle of such supplement nature can raise the lawsuitof grant about the same legal relation, it is a principle received with themeaning that it is necessary to restrict raising the affirmation lawsuit. It is not an object to which the principle of supplement nature is appliedbetween the lawsuit of the mortgage cancellation of register in a differentlegal relation, and the lawsuit of a collateralizing debt absence private seal. However, this is the mistaken application if this is applied in the businessof a court. As a result, if the principle of supplement nature is discarded and a checklawsuit will be submitted to the grant lawsuit continuing and advancing inthe same legal relation, this will be that a problem is solvable by rejectionprocessing by prohibition of a duplication lawsuit. It is made to become the judgment which does not have inconsistency through the advance accompanying the annexation procedure of a claimwhen both a grant lawsuit and a check lawsuit advance, If it advances includingwithdrawal of a duplication claim as a matter of fact at the event of theauthority to ask for explanation of a positive court, I hear that the principleof supplement nature is unnecessary, and it will be referred to as beingable to prevent that the trial to a claim of the party concerned is completedby rejection after all.