면책확인
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 and the overall purport of the pleadings:
On July 11, 2007, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the check amount under Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Gabu66451, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 5,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 20, 2007 to the full payment date.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 4, 2007, and the service of the Plaintiff was made by means of service by publication.
B. The Plaintiff was granted immunity on June 1, 2017 at the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016Da9092 exemption case, and the said decision became final and conclusive on June 16, 2017. The Defendant was omitted in the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the said case.
2. The Plaintiff’s lawfulness of the instant lawsuit filed the instant lawsuit, following the instant lawsuit, failed to enter the Defendant’s claim pursuant to the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Gaso66451 Decided the Seoul Southern District Court’s 2016Da9092 in the list of creditors, as seen in the foregoing basic facts. However, this does not appear to have been written in bad faith due to the fact that the existence of the said claim was not known. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant pursuant to the said judgment was discharged by the immunity decision and confirmed that the Defendant was exempted by the Seoul Rehabilitation Court’s immunity decision.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is acknowledged in cases where there is dispute between the parties regarding the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension or risk when there is apprehension or risk of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). However, in this case, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.