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

A. The Plaintiff received a loan from the Bank of Korea.

B. On December 17, 2014, Korea Bank Co., Ltd. transferred its loan claims against the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and notified the Plaintiff of the said assignment of claims on January 15, 2015.

C. The Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for the payment order of the acquisition money as Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea10465.

As of May 15, 2015, the above court issued an order to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 17% per annum from April 29, 2015 to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 6,720,132, and KRW 5,000 among them, and the payment order was issued to the Plaintiff at the rate of 17% per annum from April 29, 2015 to the date of full payment. The above payment order was served on the Plaintiff on July 23, 2015 and finalized around that time.

The Plaintiff was granted immunity on March 18, 2016 by filing bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2015Hadan1968, 2015 Sin 2015, the Plaintiff omitted the entry of the obligation to acquire money (hereinafter “instant obligation”) against the Defendant in the list of creditors on April 2, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Class A, 2, 5 through 7, and Eul 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. In bankruptcy and immunity, the Plaintiff asserts that the entry of the instant obligation against the Defendant in the list of creditors was not maliciously omitted in the creditor’s list, and sought confirmation of the exemption from the instant obligation.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendant in order to eliminate the risks of the plaintiff's rights or legal status in danger of inbound danger.

The defendant's claim against the plaintiff is based on the payment order that became final and conclusive, and in the event there is enforcement title, the decision of immunity has become void as a matter of course.