1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the advance payment amounting to KRW 90 million with Suwon District Court Decision 2014Da53321, supra.

B. On April 29, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant KRW 90 million and 20% interest per annum from March 1, 2015 to the date of full payment.” The said judgment was finalized on June 12, 2015.

(hereinafter “The Plaintiff’s debt against the Defendant” (hereinafter “the instant debt”).

On November 15, 2016, the Plaintiff received a decision to grant immunity (the court 2016,591,2016Hadan593) from the Incheon District Court. At the time, the Plaintiff omitted the entry of the instant debt in the list of creditors.

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff omitted the entry of the debt of this case in the above list of creditors, not intentional, and thus the effect of exemption extends to the debt of this case

Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the exemption of the obligation of this case.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when the plaintiff's right or legal status is in danger of infeasible danger, and the removal of anxiety risk against the defendant is the most effective means to obtain a confirmation judgment against the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff is a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment, which is the executive title, and the fact that immunity was granted in the event there is an executive title does not necessarily mean that the enforcement title is invalidated as a matter of course on the sole basis of the fact that there was a immunity decision. However, the Defendant’s claim is a substantive reason that

(See Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438 dated September 16, 2013). (C)

Therefore, even if the plaintiff is confirmed to have the effect of immunity by judgment, the defendant's unstable risk that it can be forced from the defendant does not still be removed.