1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 24, 2015, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff for the payment order against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”) at the Cheongong-gun District Court of the Daegu District Court’s Sung-gun District Court (Seoul District Court), and on August 3, 2015, the above court issued an order to pay “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 9,019,000 won and interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum from August 13, 2015 to the date of full payment,” and the payment order was finalized on August 27, 2015.

B. On December 8, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption under the Daegu District Court Decision 201Hadan6926, 201Ma6926, and 201Ma6926, and was granted immunity on October 16, 2012, and the said decision became final and conclusive on October 31, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. As to the legitimacy of the suit, the Plaintiff asserts that the obligation against the Defendant incurred prior to the decision on immunity became final and conclusive and sought the confirmation thereof. We examine whether the suit in this case is legitimate prior to the judgment on the merits.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation 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 against the defendant to eliminate such apprehension or danger in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.

With respect to this case, the claim of this case is a claim with executive title based on the final payment order. Thus, inasmuch as the plaintiff, a debtor, does not reverse the contents of the final payment order, such as an appeal for subsequent completion or a lawsuit of objection, or take other remedial procedures that can exclude its enforcement, the plaintiff, a debtor, does not dispute the contents of the final payment order or exclude its enforcement power, and the plaintiff, who is a debtor, has a debt against the defendant, is also a legal relationship under the substantive law.