1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On April 8, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the settlement of accounts with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2009 Ghana104637, and accepted a judgment accepting the claim regarding “1,606,413 won and the money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 26, 2010 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the judgment prior to the instant lawsuit”) and became final and conclusive on April 27, 2010; on the other hand, the Defendant was declared bankrupt on October 13, 2014; and the Defendant’s decision to grant immunity on December 10, 2014 (hereinafter “instant immunity”).

(2) Upon receipt of the instant lawsuit, the facts established on December 25, 2014 (U.S. District Court Decision 2013Hau 7064, 2013 7064) are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings. 2. As to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff seek confirmation that the obligation pursuant to the judgment in the previous suit against the Defendant was discharged pursuant to the instant decision on immunity. A lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized as the most effective means to remove the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status at the time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017).

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, it is necessary to seek the confirmation of immunity in this case.