The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The judgment below

The debtor's rehabilitation and the debtor's rehabilitation in Part 3 of the Act.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, the benefit of confirmation must be recognized as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant when taking the judgment against the defendant in question is in danger of being present in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and in removing anxiety and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da1420, Dec. 10, 191; 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff sought confirmation against the Defendant by asserting that, upon receiving the decision to commence a rehabilitation procedure from the lower court and completing repayment according to the repayment plan, the Plaintiff was granted a immunity decision on March 4, 2013 from the lower court, and thus, the Defendant was also exempted from the Defendant’s pension loan obligations pursuant to the above immunity.

However, according to the records, the defendant did not dispute that the pension loan debt of this case was exempted from the above immunity decision, but even if the pension loan debt was naturally discharged, the defendant asserted that the pension loan debt of this case can be deducted from retirement benefits, etc. payable to the plaintiff in a position equivalent to the holder of the right to separate settlement pursuant to Article 31-2 subparagraph 6 of the Public Officials Pension Act. On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that the pension loan debt of this case can not be deducted from retirement benefits, etc. as long as the pension loan debt

Therefore, the actual dispute between the original defendant is about whether the overdue debts of the instant pension loan can be deducted from the Plaintiff’s retirement benefit, etc., and there is no dispute between the original defendant and the original defendant that the instant pension loan debt was exempted from immunity by the lower court’s decision on March 4, 2013, and even if it is confirmed that the instant pension loan debt was exempted, it is the legal uncertainty of the Plaintiff’s assertion.