1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The plaintiff was granted immunity by Busan District Court No. 2013da641, and the plaintiff asserts that the above obligation was also exempted because it did not perform the obligation described in the purport of the claim at the time of the application for bankruptcy and exemption.

Where any claim is disputed as to which immunity has become final and conclusive despite a bankruptcy debtor's decision to grant immunity, the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, remove the current 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, in this case, seeking the confirmation of immunity is unlawful because it is not a final resolution of dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

On the other hand, as the existence of interest in confirmation is a matter of ex officio investigation, the court should decide ex officio regardless of the party's assertion.

(Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771 Decided October 12, 2017). As to the claims stated in the purport of the claim, as a result of the filing of a lawsuit against the Plaintiff by the Savings Bank against the Plaintiff, the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive. Accordingly, the fact that the Defendant succeeded to the execution clause can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 or is significant in this court.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.