1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of discharge among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The defendant's Seoul Northern District Court against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 26, 2009, the Defendant (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2009Hu11912) filed a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) against the Plaintiff on May 28, 2009, and received the payment order on May 28, 2009 (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff himself on June 30, 2009 and became final and conclusive on July 15, 2009.

B. On December 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2014Hadan2710, 2014Ma2710, and obtained a decision of immunity from the above court on September 3, 2015. At the time of the said application, the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) in the list of creditors.

C. On April 11, 2018, the Defendant filed an application with the Gwangju District Court for a collection and seizure order (2018TT2409) by designating the debtor as the Plaintiff and the third debtor as the Plaintiff, E and F corporation. On April 11, 2018, the Defendant received a decision of acceptance from the said court on April 13, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for the confirmation of discharge among the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s ex officio determination on the part of the claim for the confirmation of discharge is sought to confirm the Defendant’s exemption of liability, such as the Plaintiff’s obligation based

On the other hand, the lawsuit of this case was brought for the purpose of preventing the procedure for compulsory execution by obtaining a confirmation that the defendant's obligation to take over the money was exempted from liability. The most effective and appropriate means to prevent compulsory execution procedure is to file a lawsuit of objection, and as long as the plaintiff seeks an objection by the lawsuit of this case, the part of the claim for confirmation of exemption does not have a benefit of confirmation.

Therefore, the part of the claim for the confirmation of immunity in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.

3. Determination as to a lawsuit claiming objection

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned raises an objection to the list of creditors at the time the plaintiff declared bankrupt and applied for immunity.