1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 19, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment that “(the Plaintiff) shall pay KRW 82,465,381 to (the Defendant)” (hereinafter “previous judgment”; and the Defendant’s claim recognized earlier is referred to as “instant claim”).

The previous judgment was served on the Plaintiff on September 17, 2010, and it was finalized on October 2, 2010.

B. The Plaintiff was granted immunity (Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2015No. 591).

The decision was confirmed on January 28, 2016.

In that process, the Plaintiff did not enter the claims in the list of creditors.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 to No. 4

2. Determination on the legality of a lawsuit

A. The obligor’s filing of a suit of demurrer against the obligee with title of debt exempted due to bankruptcy of the basic legal doctrine and seeking the exclusion of executory power is an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risk of present in the legal status.

It is unlawful to seek the confirmation of exemption because it is not a final solution of dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

(Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771 Decided October 12, 2017). B.

Judgment

Since the defendant is a creditor who is subject to a final and conclusive judgment that will become an executive title, the plaintiff files a lawsuit of demurrer against the previous judgment and claims of this case also have the effect of the decision of immunity, it is right to seek the exclusion of executive force.

It is unlawful to seek the confirmation of exemption of claim of this case as there is no benefit of confirmation.

[A lawsuit of objection to the previous judgment is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Seoul Central District Court (Article 44(1) of the Civil Execution Act), and this court cannot hold a hearing. Although this court knew that if the claim is changed to a suit of objection, the plaintiff would transfer the case, the plaintiff did not conduct any procedural action.]

3. The lawsuit of this case is unlawful and cannot be corrected. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.