1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the cause of the claim was omitted from the obligation to the Defendant at the time of the application for immunity and its bankruptcy, and it was known that the Plaintiff had recently been notified by the Defendant that compulsory execution would be carried out. The Plaintiff’s omission of the obligation to the Defendant was not by bad faith, but by seeking confirmation of the exemption from liability against the Defendant.

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In order to have the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation, it is necessary to make sure immediately by the judgment of confirmation that is the object of confirmation in order to eliminate the risk problem, and it is the most effective and appropriate means.

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 holds the title of debt with immunity, the debtor's filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim and seeking the exclusion of the executory power based on the effect of immunity is an effective and appropriate means to remove the existing apprehension and danger in the legal

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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771, Oct. 12, 2017). Meanwhile, the existence of interest in confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is subject to ex officio investigation, and the court’s ex officio determination ought to be made regardless of the party’s assertion.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the said legal doctrine is applicable.