1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of discharge among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. As to the part on the claim for the confirmation of discharge among the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s ex officio determination on the Defendant’s claim is sought by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da1350560, Seoul Central District Court’s decision on performance recommendation, and the Defendant’s exemption from

On the other hand, the lawsuit of this case was brought for the purpose of preventing the procedure for compulsory execution by obtaining a confirmation that the defendant's claim for indemnity is a claim for exemption. The most effective and appropriate means to prevent compulsory execution procedure is to file a lawsuit of objection, and as long as the plaintiff seeks an objection by the lawsuit of this case, the part of the claim for confirmation of exemption does not have a benefit of confirmation.

Therefore, the part of the claim for the confirmation of immunity in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.

2. Determination as to the lawsuit claiming objection

A. Facts of recognition 1) The defendant, a credit guarantee agency, obtained a loan from the National Bank of Korea on August 29, 2001, set the credit guarantee principal as KRW 17 million in order to guarantee the payment of the principal and interest of loan, and the plaintiff, a spouse of B, guaranteed all the obligations owed by B to the defendant according to the above credit guarantee agreement. 2) The defendant, a credit guarantee agency, on September 17, 2003, caused a guarantee accident on the principal and interest of KRW 14,410,742 in subrogation of B, on behalf of the National Bank of Korea.

3) On March 2, 2009, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, a joint guarantor, as Seoul Central District Court 2009 Ghana1350560, seeking the payment of indemnity amount, etc. on March 11, 2009. The above court rendered a decision of performance recommendation on March 11, 2009 that “B and the Plaintiff jointly and severally agreed with the Defendant to pay KRW 14,354,218 and its delay damages,” and the above decision was finalized on June 9, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant decision”; and the claim for indemnity amount (free) “the instant claim”).

[4] Meanwhile, on July 12, 2011, the Plaintiff’s District Court 201Hadan2966 decided July 12, 201.