1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As stated in the purport of the claim, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court 2001Da326663, Apr. 3, 2002) seeking the payment of the amount of the reimbursement for joint and several surety (Seoul District Court 2001Da32663, Apr. 27, 2002) and the judgment became final and conclusive on Apr. 27, 2002. After filing an application for the payment order (Seoul Western District Court 2012Da15104, Mar. 29, 2012) ordering the payment of the above amount of the reimbursement for the interruption of the extinctive prescription, and received the payment order as stated in the purport of

B. On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual bankruptcy and exemption with the Daejeon District Court, and was declared bankrupt on July 21, 2015 by the said court under the lower court’s 2015Hadan619. On July 29, 2015, the decision to grant immunity on August 13, 2015 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) became final and conclusive on August 13, 2015, upon receipt of the said court’s decision to grant immunity as prescribed by 619.

C. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the decision on immunity of the instant case did not indicate the Plaintiff’s liability for reimbursement against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant liability”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

A. The defendant's defense prior to the merits asserts that, insofar as a final and conclusive judgment and a final payment order exists with respect to the debt of this case, the plaintiff should file a lawsuit of objection to exclude enforcement force, and that the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of discharge of the debt of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

(b) Litigations for confirmation shall be permitted in cases where there is any danger or lack existing in rights or legal status, and obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such danger or omission, i.e., benefit in the protection of rights of confirmation.

However, the plaintiff's assertion is against the defendant.