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

2. If a lawsuit for confirmation is lawful ex officio as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, there should be interests in confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefits of such confirmation should be recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendant in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and there is currently apprehension and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.

However, according to the records of this case, it is recognized that the payment order of the claim for reimbursement against the plaintiff was finalized on June 22, 2007 by the Jeju District Court 2007 tea1961, which the defendant filed against the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff appears to bring a lawsuit in this case for the purpose of preventing compulsory execution based on the above payment order. As above, the fact that there was immunity in the event of enforcement title does not automatically lose its executory power, but merely becomes a substantial reason to bring an objection to the claim by the said immunity order (see Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1428, Sept. 16, 2013). However, even if the effect of immunity is confirmed by judgment, the Plaintiff’s apprehension and risk that the Plaintiff may be subject to compulsory execution from the Defendant is still not removed.

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff could immediately seek the exclusion of the executory power by filing a claim objection against the above payment order, seeking confirmation of exemption without filing a claim cannot be deemed as an effective and appropriate means to eliminate legal uncertainty and danger, and thus, the benefit of confirmation is not recognized.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed.