1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On December 11, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the effect of the exemption extends to the Defendant’s obligations against the Defendant and filed a claim for the confirmation of exemption. As such, the Plaintiff, at the Seoul Central District Court, obtained immunity from the Seoul Central District Court (2012Hadan8030, 2012, 2012, 8030).

In this regard, the defendant filed a claim against the plaintiff for the payment of the bill and received a favorable decision in Seoul Central District Court 96 Ghana 165059, and the decision of performance recommendation was also final and conclusive due to the same cause of the claim, and the decision of performance recommendation was also made in Seoul Central District Court 2006Da60337, which was so served, that the plaintiff's omission in the list of creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings was intentional and thus

2. Examining the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio, the instant lawsuit claiming the confirmation of discharge on the following grounds is unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit. Immunity does not constitute a ground to automatically lose the validity of the executive title with respect to the exempted obligation, but is merely an substantial reason to exclude the executive title through a claim objection suit.

(Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438 Decided September 16, 2013). According to the evidence No. 6, for the interruption of extinctive prescription, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the same claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription, and subsequently rendered a favorable judgment on November 25, 2016, by which the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Since there was a judgment that is the executive title, the Plaintiff, a debtor, was granted immunity in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, does not lose its executive force as a matter of course.

Ultimately, the instant lawsuit claiming the confirmation of exemption rather than an action of demurrer to remove executory power cannot be an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s present apprehension and danger in the legal status.

3. Conclusion.