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

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the acquisition amount (Seoul Central District Court 2009 Ghana2534088) as stated in the purport of the claim, and received a favorable judgment on March 19, 2010, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2010.

B. On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity and immunity with the Chuncheon District Court 2015Hadan567, 2015Ma567, and filed an application for immunity and immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity”) on March 7, 2016, and on March 22, 2016, the instant immunity and immunity became final and conclusive as is.

C. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of immunity of the instant case did not indicate the Plaintiff’s obligation to take over the Defendant (hereinafter “instant obligation”).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' respective arguments;

A. On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Chuncheon District Court was granted the instant immunity. At the time, the Plaintiff omitted the Plaintiff’s exemption from the obligee’s list because it was unaware of the existence of the instant obligation against the Defendant, but the effect of the instant immunity exemption is comprehensively limited to the Defendant’s claim, thereby seeking confirmation that the instant obligation was exempted.

B. As the Plaintiff alleged in the Defendant’s assertion failed in bad faith in the list of creditors, the Defendant is not exempt from liability pursuant to the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

3. Ex officio determination as to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, the suit for confirmation is permissible in cases where there is a danger or unclaimed proposal existing in the rights or legal status, and where it is the most effective and appropriate means to remove the risk or unclaimed bill, i.e., where there is a benefit in protecting the rights of confirmation.

However, like the Plaintiff’s assertion, Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant against the Defendant.