1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 2011, the Defendant acquired loans from the Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff 3,204,136 won, and interest and delay damages claims against the Plaintiff.

B. On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and discharge with the Daegu District Court for the said court’s declaration of bankruptcy and the said court’s declaration of bankruptcy and the said 3300 exemption. The said court rendered a ruling of bankruptcy in the said case, and rendered a ruling of granting exemption on July 3, 2014. At the time of the instant decision of immunity, the Plaintiff omitted the Plaintiff’s claim based on the payment order, such as the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff (or the claim for loans to the Plaintiff of Hyundai Switzerland Savings Bank, 3,204,136 and interest and delay damages thereon) on the same payment order as the Defendant’s claim stated in the creditors’ list.

C. On April 4, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the competent court for a payment order, as stated in the purport of the claim seeking the payment of the assignee’s claim as stated in the foregoing paragraph (a). The payment order issued by this court was finalized on May 5, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] The fact that the plaintiff is the plaintiff, and there is no dispute

2. Determination as to the existence of interest in the lawsuit of this case

A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation of exemption from the instant obligation, the Defendant’s claim for such confirmation cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right or legal status’s imminent unstable danger, and thus, asserts that it is unlawful.

B. Legal doctrine 1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, there should be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate the risks of the plaintiff’s right or legal status, and there is an apprehension that there is an apprehension that the plaintiff’s right or legal status may exist, and the risk of apprehension (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da45140, Jul. 23, 2015).