1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to remove the plaintiff's rights or legal status in danger and danger.

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 status

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.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on November 26, 2009 against the Plaintiff, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the basis of the entire purport of the statement and pleadings as to the foregoing case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771, Oct. 12, 2017). In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff around 2009; and (b) the Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2009Da47327, Nov. 26, 2009, “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 29 million to the Defendant at a rate of 20% per annum from October 24, 2009 to the full payment date; and (c) the Plaintiff was subject to a ruling of the Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2009Da20985, May 31, 2011.