1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of loans of KRW 35,00,000 and damages for delay from July 1, 2006 (hereinafter “instant loans”) with the Changwon District Court Seoyang Branch 2010 tea271, and the Defendant received a payment order from the above court on April 16, 2010, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on June 24, 2010.

B. On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff was granted decision to grant immunity by Daegu District Court 2015Da4199, and the said decision became final and conclusive on September 10, 2016, and the instant loan claims are not stated in the creditor list.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul evidence 1, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. A. A lawsuit seeking confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment for confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da68650, 6867, Feb. 9, 2007; 2014Da2082555, Mar. 15, 2017). Notwithstanding the confirmation of immunity with respect to a bankrupt debtor, where a claim is disputed as to which claim constitutes non-exempt claim, the obligor may remove the current indemnite/risk in the rights or legal status by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity.

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.

B. As to the instant case, the suit of this case is filed.