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

2. The Seoul Central District Court against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

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

3. As to the claim for confirmation of discharge, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of discharge against the Defendant by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009 Ghana158948.

A lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment for confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger existing therein (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017). Notwithstanding the confirmation of grant of immunity against a bankrupt debtor, where any claim is disputed as to what claim constitutes a non-exempt claim, an obligor may, by filing a lawsuit for confirmation of grant of immunity, eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in his/her rights or legal status.

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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771, Oct. 12, 2017). Moreover, the mere fact that there was a immunity in the event of a title of execution does not necessarily mean a reason to lose the validity of the title as a matter of course, but merely a substantive reason to exclude the executive force of the title through a claim objection suit.

(see Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438, Sept. 16, 2013). In light of the above legal principles, the health team, the Plaintiff, as an executive title, may seek the exclusion of enforcement force by filing a claim objection against the above judgment.