1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On September 26, 2011, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of immunity, such as the purport of the claim, based on the decision to grant immunity (determined on October 11, 2011) from Busan District Court 201.

First, we examine ex officio.

Plaintiff

Comprehensively taking account of the allegations and the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the obligation for which the Plaintiff seeks the confirmation of discharge is the obligation that became final and conclusive by a judgment rendered around September 24, 2009 at the Seoul Central District Court 2009Gau1252154 claim for the amount of discharge.

In such a case, the plaintiff is seeking to exclude executory power by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against the above judgment, and to seek confirmation of immunity as in this case cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate risks and deficiencies relating to the legal status of the plaintiff.

In other words, even if the plaintiff is given the confirmation of exemption in this case, it does not exclude the enforcement force of the above judgment.

Ultimately, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

Meanwhile, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), the plaintiff is recognized to have agreed to pay the above debt in installments with the defendant around December 21, 2010 after the application for immunity was filed on November 22, 2010.

Therefore, the plaintiff should be deemed to have been aware of the existence of the above debt prior to the decision to grant immunity. In this case, Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the debtor shall be deemed to fall under "a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith." Thus

Even if the plaintiff's claim is rejected, it cannot be accepted.