1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and all the arguments.

On June 29, 2001, the defendant entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the plaintiff and the plaintiff's establishment of the National Agricultural Cooperatives, and later, the plaintiff did not pay the borrowed money. Accordingly, on September 15, 2006, the defendant paid 18,054,636 won on behalf of the plaintiff at the National Agricultural Cooperatives' establishment of the Yellow National Agricultural Cooperatives.

B. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order under the Jeonju District Court’s Branch Branch Branch 2013 tea948 to receive the claim for reimbursement as a result of the subrogation as referred to in the preceding paragraph. The payment order with the content that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 37,126,450 won and 18,054,636 won and 12% interest per annum from November 5, 2013 to the date of full payment” was served on the Plaintiff on December 9, 2013 and became final and conclusive on December 24, 2013.

The above payment order is called “instant payment order.”

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was granted immunity on September 18, 2015 in the Daejeon District Court 2015Da1478 case of immunity.

2. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit through the instant lawsuit, but the Daejeon District Court did not enter the Defendant’s claim for indemnity based on subrogation in the list of creditors as seen in the instant basic facts in the Daejeon District Court 2015Hun-1478 exemption case, but did not enter it in bad faith as it was not caused by the loss. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity based on subrogation by the Defendant asserted that the exemption was granted by the decision on immunity of the said exemption case, and sought confirmation of the exemption.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there should be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is disputed between the parties with respect to the legal relationship which is the object and thereby the plaintiff's rights or legal status.