1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. In borrowing money from the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted that a notary public prepared and held a notarial deed No. 5165 of the Youngpo General Law Firm (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”). Since then, the Plaintiff received bankruptcy or exemption under the Incheon District Court Decision 2013Hadan862 and 2013Ma859, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that his/her liability based on the said notarial deed was exempted.

2. Determination

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

In a lawsuit for confirmation, 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 or danger in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.

Notwithstanding the confirmation of decision to grant immunity to a debtor in bankruptcy, where any claim is disputed whether a non-exempt claim, etc., the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in his/her rights or legal status.

However, in relation to the creditor who holds the title of debt with immunity, the debtor's filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim and seeking the exclusion of the executory power based on the effect of immunity is an effective and appropriate means to remove the existing apprehension and danger in the legal

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). Meanwhile, the existence of interest in confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is subject to ex officio investigation, and the court’s ex officio determination ought to be made regardless of the party’s assertion.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

The lawsuit of this case is a claim against the plaintiff of this case.