1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant concluded a housing environment improvement fund loan agreement with the Plaintiff, and loaned 3,423,250 won on the same day to the Plaintiff on July 10, 1996, and 1,50,000 won on December 8, 1997.

As of February 27, 2008, the principal of each of the above loans was 5,892,290 won in total, 6,524,378 won in total, and annual interest rate was 3,490,415 won in total.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff regarding each of the above loans with the Incheon District Court 2008 Ghana107040.

The above court decided to recommend that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,907,083 and KRW 2,721,260 per annum from February 28, 2008 to March 26, 2008; KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; KRW 3,171,030 per annum from February 28, 2008 to March 26, 2008; and KRW 19% per annum from the next day to March 26, 208; and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above decision to recommend execution was delivered to the Plaintiff on March 26, 2008 and confirmed on April 11, 2008.

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the Incheon District Court Decision 2012Hadan2191, 2012Ha201, 2190, and upon receipt of immunity on May 26, 2014, the said decision became final and conclusive on June 13, 2014. At the time, the Plaintiff omitted the description of the obligation against the Defendant in the list of creditors at the time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant lawsuit was not intentional to omit the description of the instant debt against the Defendant in the creditor’s list in the bankruptcy and immunity procedure, and sought to confirm the exemption of the instant debt by asserting that it was not intentional.

B. 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 the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant for confirmation, in order to eliminate the anxiety and risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and the benefit of confirmation is the most effective means.