1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the Plaintiff’s obligation stated in the claim against the Defendant was exempted due to the same reasons as stated in the attached Form.

2. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

If a lawsuit for confirmation is lawful, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate such apprehension and danger, in danger, in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and in removing such apprehension and risk.

In this case, according to the records, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff as Incheon District Court Decision 2017 tea15281 to "the payment order with a rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment" against the plaintiff, which is 870,375 won and 529,850 won, and received the payment order order as above from the above court on June 8, 2017.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff is a claim based on the payment order decision, which is the executive title, and the fact that immunity was granted in the event that there is an executive title as above does not automatically lose its executive force, but merely becomes a substantial reason to bring an objection to the claim (see Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438, Sept. 16, 2013). However, even if the effect of immunity is confirmed by judgment, the plaintiff's unstable risk that the plaintiff may be subject to compulsory execution from the defendant is still not removed.

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff could immediately seek the exclusion of the executory power as a lawsuit of demurrer against the instant payment order, seeking the confirmation of exemption without filing a claim cannot be deemed as an effective and appropriate means to eliminate legal uncertainty risks, and thus, the benefit of confirmation is not recognized.

3. If so, the plaintiff.