1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a loan lawsuit against the Plaintiff under the Daegu District Court Decision 2003Gapo271371 and received the instant judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 10 million and its delay damages.”

B. On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff received immunity from the Daegu District Court (2013da1584) from the Daegu District Court. The Plaintiff did not enter obligations based on the instant judgment in the list of creditors of the said immunity case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Judgment by deemed confession (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. In a lawsuit for confirmation of judgment, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate such apprehension or danger, having existing in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and having concerns over the plaintiff's rights or legal status.

Notwithstanding the confirmation of decision to grant immunity to a debtor in bankruptcy, where any claim is disputed whether a non-exempt claim, etc., the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in his/her rights or legal status.

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.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771, Oct. 12, 2017). Meanwhile, the existence of benefits of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is a matter of ex officio examination, and the court, regardless of the party’s assertion, should make ex officio determination.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006). The plaintiff is exempted from liability.