2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.

3...

However, the Plaintiff’s previous obligation of KRW 6 million to Defendant B and the obligation of KRW 85 million to Defendant C, plus KRW 91 million, shall be forgotten, and the Plaintiff did not enter in the list of creditors of the above procedure.

However, since the plaintiff did not neglect in bad faith, the above two obligations are exempted from all of the immunity decision of this case.

2. Notwithstanding the confirmation of whether a lawsuit against Defendant B is lawful or not, where a claim is disputed as to which of the debtor in bankruptcy, the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of exemption, remove the existing apprehension and danger in the legal position by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of exemption.

However, in relation to the creditor who has executive title with respect to the exempted obligation, the debtor's filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim and seeking the exclusion of executive force based on the effect of the discharge becomes an effective and appropriate means to remove the existing apprehension and danger in the legal

Therefore, even in such cases, seeking the confirmation of immunity is unlawful because it is not a final resolution of dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the exemption of the instant case against Defendant B, not a lawsuit seeking objection, is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s filing a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the exemption of the instant case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim against Defendant C, the fact that the Plaintiff’s decision became final and conclusive on July 13, 2010 upon receiving the decision to grant immunity of this case is acknowledged.

(b).