1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of immunity in the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The defendant's Daejeon District Court against the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to a claim for objection

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. The Plaintiff asserts that at the time of filing an application for discharge from Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Hadan1087 and 2017, the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the obligation against the Defendant and omitted in the list of creditors at the time of filing the application for discharge from Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Hadan1087 and 2017, and sought the refusal of compulsory execution based on the judgment as stipulated in the Disposition No. 2, and also sought

However, in relation to the creditor who has executive title with respect to the exempted obligation, the debtor's filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim and seeking the exclusion of executive force based on the effect of the discharge becomes an effective and appropriate means to remove the existing apprehension and danger in the legal status

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 Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771 Decided October 12, 2017). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is acknowledged by the Plaintiff’s assertion that the health care unit and the Defendant have executive title, namely, a judgment on the Plaintiff’s claims against the Plaintiff. In such a case, seeking the confirmation of the exemption of the above obligations is not a final resolution method of the dispute, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation in this part.

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of exemption among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed.