1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion omitted from the list of creditors the obligation against the Defendant, including KRW 146,829,812, and interest thereon, delay damages, etc. (hereinafter “instant obligation”), while filing an application for bankruptcy immunity with the Suwon District Court on April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff did not err in bad faith, and thus, the instant claim does not constitute non-exempt claim.

2. In a lawsuit for confirmation of ex officio, there must be benefit from confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit from confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means for the defendant to receive a judgment of confirmation against the plaintiff when the plaintiff's right or legal status is in danger of infeasible danger and removing the apprehension.

According to Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff and the defendant formed conciliation in the Seoul High Court 201Na16112, 1612, and 16129 (Counterclaim) case on July 15, 201, "the plaintiff shall pay 146,829,812 won to the defendant until August 19, 2011. If the above amount is not paid by the payment date, the plaintiff shall pay the unpaid amount plus 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is seeking confirmation of exemption of the above claim for which conciliation has been completed, and it excludes compulsory execution against the plaintiff's property with the title of execution, even if the plaintiff is confirmed by the judgment of exemption, that alone alone alone does not mean that the plaintiff's unstable risk that compulsory execution can be avoided from the defendant, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an appropriate legal means for the plaintiff to seek confirmation of exemption as the lawsuit of this case.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.