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

A. On November 10, 2005, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the money according to the loan certificate, as stated in the purport of the claim, and became final and conclusive on December 20, 2005, upon winning a favorable judgment, and thereafter filed an application for a payment order ordering the payment of the said money (Ulsan District Court 2015 tea1655) to discontinue the extinctive prescription, and received a payment order on May 11, 2015, and became final and conclusive on June 2, 2015.

B. On August 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for a personal bankruptcy and exemption with the Incheon District Court for immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”) and confirmed June 26, 2014 upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity”) from August 27, 2013.

C. The Plaintiff did not enter the instant obligation in the list of creditors at the time of the decision to grant immunity of the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 3

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant decision on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit was extinguished upon the decision on immunity of the instant case.

ex officio, as the plaintiff's assertion, even if the debt of this case against the defendant does not constitute a claim omitted in the creditor list due to bad faith under the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act"), the effect of the decision on immunity of this case is naturally arising under the main sentence of Article 566 of the same Act, and it does not need to be confirmed again by the judgment.

In addition, even if the plaintiff is confirmed to have the effect of immunity by judgment, the plaintiff's danger and unexplosion that it can be forced from the defendant as it cannot be ruled out the execution power of the above final judgment and the final payment order concerning the debt in this case.

Therefore, insofar as the judgment on the confirmation of exemption for the instant obligation sought by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risks and deficiencies existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, the instant lawsuit is beneficial to confirmation.