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

A. On April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for a loan for consumption of money borrowed at an annual interest rate of 3,000,000 won with a health care loan company (hereinafter “foreign company”) at an annual interest rate of 34.9%.

(hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”). (b)

As the Plaintiff did not repay the loan, Nonparty Company filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of “2,99,580 won and the money calculated at the rate of 34.9% per annum from January 16, 2015 to the date of full payment (Seoul Western District Court 2015Dada471880)” (Seoul Western District Court 2015Dada47180) and the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff by service by public notice on September 11, 2015, which became final and conclusive around that time.

The judgment of this case is referred to as "the judgment of this case"

(B) B. On September 1, 2016, the Defendant issued a notice of assignment of claims to the Plaintiff on the 21st of the same month upon receipt of a claim based on the instant monetary loan agreement and the instant judgment from the Nonparty Company. Meanwhile, on November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity (U.S. District Court Decision 2015Hadan5400, 5400, 5400), upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity on December 13, 2016 from the said court, and became final and conclusive around that time. The creditors’ list omitted claims based on the instant judgment. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, and 2 evidence (including the serial number, and the purport of the entire pleadings).

2. The plaintiff asserts that the decision on the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case has an effect on the defendant's claim that occurred before the decision on immunity becomes final and conclusive, and seeks confirmation thereon. We examine the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case ex officio prior to the decision on the merits.

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

However, this case.