면책확인의 소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 23, 2012, Hanil Loan Co., Ltd. applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court 2012 tea8090), and received a payment order from the above court on December 6, 2012. The original payment order was served on the Plaintiff on December 31, 2012, and became final and conclusive around that time.
B. On February 13, 2017, Korea Deposit Co., Ltd. transferred the above obligation to the Defendant and notified the Defendant of the assignment of obligation at that time.
C. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption (in the case of the Changwon District Court 2017, 10195, 107Hadan10195), and the decision was finalized on August 10, 2017 by the above court on the 25th of the same month.
At the time of bankruptcy and immunity, the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant’s claim based on the above payment order from the creditors list.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff sought confirmation that the plaintiff's obligation against the defendant was exempted on account of bankruptcy and immunity. We examine ex officio the legality of the lawsuit in this case.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the 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 to eliminate such apprehension or danger in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.
Where any claim is disputed whether a non-exempt claim is confirmed notwithstanding the confirmation of immunity for the debtor in bankruptcy, the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in his/her right or legal status.
However, in relation to the creditor who holds the executive title of the exempted obligation, the debtor files a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim, and seeks the exclusion of the executory power of the discharge.