1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion omitted the obligation based on the instant payment order (hereinafter “instant obligation”) at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2017Hadan399, 2017Ma399, and the Plaintiff did not intentionally omit the Plaintiff’s negligence, and thus, the instant obligation was also exempted according to the immunity decision in the bankruptcy and exemption application case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of exemption from the instant obligation.

2. Since the existence of the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation of ex officio as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case is a matter of ex officio investigation, the court should ex officio determine whether the party's assertion is

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006). In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the defendant when there is an apprehension or risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and removing such apprehension or risk.

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 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 Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771, Oct. 12, 2017). Gamblock Plaintiff is exempt from the obligation of this case.