beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of “the amount of KRW 3,600,000 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from September 26, 2008 to January 24, 2013, and the amount calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment,” and received a favorable judgment on March 18, 2013, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
(Seoul Southern District Court 2013da32 and the plaintiff were served by public notice). (b)
After that, the decision to grant immunity to the plaintiff was confirmed on October 15, 2015.
(Seoul Central District Court 2014Hadan10089, 2014. 10089). The list of creditors of the above case states that the plaintiff bears the obligation of KRW 275,463,858 only to the remaining principal of the creditor.
subsection (1) is omitted.
[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff is a bankruptcy claim of the defendant, and the plaintiff is not a malicious omission in the creditor list, and thus the plaintiff was exempted from liability, and the confirmation is sought.
B. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment against the defendant when there is an infeasible or risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and removing such apprehension or risk (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45140, Jul. 23, 2015). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s duty of performance became final and conclusive by the judgment of this case, and even if a decision of immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, it does not constitute a reason to automatically lose the effect of executive title with respect to the exempted obligation. However, there is objection to the claim.