1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 19, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim against the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Gau1210), and was sentenced to the judgment that “the Plaintiff and C shall jointly and severally pay to the Defendant an amount of KRW 6 million at the rate of 30% per annum from June 10, 2005 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability with the Daegu District Court Decision 2010Hadan2050, 2010Ha2050, 2050, and received a decision of exemption from liability on December 21, 2010 (hereinafter “instant decision of exemption from immunity”). On January 5, 2011, the said decision of exemption was finalized, and the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff was not stated in the list of creditors at the time of the instant decision of exemption from immunity.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant did not enter the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff in the creditor list in bad faith at the time the immunity decision of this case was rendered, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was exempted.

3. We examine ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, ex officio, as to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

If a lawsuit for confirmation is lawful, it shall have the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights.

In addition, the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment against the defendant when the plaintiff's rights or legal status in present unstable danger exists and removing such apprehension danger.

Notwithstanding the decision of immunity in this case regarding the plaintiff's obligations against the defendant, the decision of this case becomes final and conclusive as seen earlier, and the fact that there was immunity in the above case where there is enforcement title does not automatically lose its enforcement power.