1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As of June 11, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order with respect to the Plaintiff, etc., the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order with respect to KRW 86,127,304 and KRW 44,614,604 as to KRW 86,127,30 and KRW 18% per annum from May 28, 2014 to the date of full payment. The payment order was finalized on July 3, 2014, stating that “the Plaintiff, etc. shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 86,127,304 and the amount of KRW 4,614,604 as to KRW 48% from May 28, 2014.”

(hereinafter “instant payment order”. B. The Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant on the instant payment order (hereinafter “instant debt”).

On April 30, 2015 and August 4, 2015, the Defendant received each of the claims and collection orders as to the Plaintiff’s deposit claims under Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 Other Bonds 6372 and 2015 Other Bonds 11043, by designating the title of execution of the instant payment order as the title of execution. The original copy of each of the said claims and collection orders was served on the Plaintiff himself/herself on June 24, 2015.

C. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hadan8780, 2015Ma8780, and the said decision became final and conclusive on February 18, 2016, upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity on February 3, 2016. At the time, the Plaintiff omitted the entry of the instant obligation in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not intentionally omit the entry of the instant obligation in the creditor list, and thus, the effect of the exemption extends to the instant obligation. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff intentionally omitted the entry of the instant obligation even though he knew that the Plaintiff was aware of the obligation by being served both the original copy of the payment order and the original copy of the decision of the seizure and collection order.

3. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights.