2. The plaintiff's second preliminary domicile.

A. On January 24, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment in Jeonju District Court 2006Kahap703 Decided January 24, 2007, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay 40 million won and interest or delay damages jointly and severally with C” (hereinafter “previous 1 judgment”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 4, 2007.

B. On October 25, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment that contains the same content as that of the above paragraph (a) (hereinafter “previous Second Judgment”) against the Plaintiff in the case of acquisition by transfer (the closing date of pleadings: October 18, 2016) against the Plaintiff for the extension of extinctive prescription again, and the judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

C. On the other hand, on October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff received a decision of immunity (hereinafter “instant decision of immunity”) from Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2014Da5288, and the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim in the list of creditors.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, which are obvious to this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The part concerning the primary and primary claims in the lawsuit in this case is legitimate ex officio by the determination of whether the primary and primary claims are legitimate.

Notwithstanding the confirmation of decision to grant immunity to a debtor in bankruptcy, where any claim is disputed whether a non-exempt claim, etc., the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in his/her rights or legal status.

However, in relation to the creditor who has executive title with respect to the exempted obligation, the debtor's filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim and seeking the exclusion of executive force based on the effect of the discharge becomes an effective and appropriate means to remove the existing apprehension and danger in the legal

Therefore, even in such cases, seeking the confirmation of immunity is unlawful because it is not a final resolution of dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

Supreme Court on October 2017