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

A. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement and its delay damages (hereinafter “instant indemnity claim”) with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da256449, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 14, 2012, upon being sentenced in favor of the Plaintiff on November 27, 2012 in the said judgment proceeding by public notice.

B. On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff was granted a decision to grant immunity to the District Court Decision 2014Da3957, and the said decision became final and conclusive on October 11, 2016. At the time, the Plaintiff did not enter the claim for reimbursement in accordance with the said final and conclusive judgment in the list of creditors.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to exclude the executory power of the said final judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry (including serial number) in Eul 1-9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The lawsuit seeking confirmation of the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment of confirmation is rendered at the time the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risks existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). Meanwhile, even if a decision of immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act becomes final and conclusive and conclusive and is exempted from the obligor’s obligation, such exemption does not necessarily mean a reason that the enforcement title of the exempted obligation becomes void as a matter of course, and is merely an substantive reason that can exclude enforcement force of the executive title through a lawsuit seeking objection.

(See Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438 Decided September 16, 2013, etc.). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant lawsuit was brought for the purpose of preventing a compulsory execution procedure by having the Plaintiff verified that the instant claim for reimbursement was a claim for exemption, which was ultimately unlawful, as the instant claim was not an interest in confirmation.