1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Busan District Court. In Busan District Court Decision 2014 (Seoul District Court Decision 2014) and the Decision Immunity was rendered on November 5, 2014, and the Decision Immunity became final and conclusive on November 20, 2014 (which became final and conclusive on November 20, 2014).

B. Meanwhile, on March 16, 2010, the Busan District Court Decision 2009 Ghana435756, which filed against the Plaintiff by the promoting mutual savings bank, rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the promoting mutual savings bank the amount of KRW 7,034,641 and KRW 2,840,458 per annum for KRW 20% per annum from January 28, 2010 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. The Defendant acquired the claim from the promotion mutual savings bank under the instant judgment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 2 through 5, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A lawsuit for confirmation of the interest in the confirmation of the instant lawsuit requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the Defendant, by means of the instant lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). The Plaintiff appears to have tried to exclude enforcement of the instant judgment by obtaining confirmation that the obligation pursuant to the instant judgment was discharged through the instant lawsuit. According to the foregoing facts, since a claim based on the instant judgment is a claim established by the final and conclusive judgment, insofar as the content of the final and conclusive title of debt, such as the filing of a lawsuit demanding objection, is reversed or other remedial procedures are not taken against the enforcement force of the instant judgment, insofar as the Plaintiff seeking the exemption of an obligation, which is the obligor, does not necessarily constitute an executory force of the instant judgment.