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

A. On April 10, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff and received a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 2,000,805, and any delay damages and expenses incurred in demanding the payment thereof to the Defendant,” and the payment order was finalized on July 15, 2017.

B. On June 28, 2017, upon filing a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Suwon District Court, the Plaintiff was granted immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”). The decision became final and conclusive on July 13, 2017, and the Plaintiff’s list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff in the instant application for immunity is omitted.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, a significant fact in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s failure to enter the instant claim in the creditor list in the Plaintiff’s bankruptcy and exemption procedure is not intentional by negligence, and thus, the effect of the decision to grant immunity on the instant claim extends to the instant claim.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeks confirmation that the claim of this case was exempted by the lawsuit of this case.

3. ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, there should be interests in the instant lawsuit for confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefits of confirmation should be recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment against the Defendant to eliminate the risks of apprehensions in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and in removing such apprehensions.

However, the claim of this case is a claim based on the payment order, the executive title of which is confirmed, and the effect of executive title is naturally effective only on the fact that immunity was granted in the event there is executive title as above.