1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was entitled to the Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2014Hadan1008, 2014 11008, and 2014 11008. The Plaintiff did not state its obligation against the Defendant on the list of creditors of the above bankruptcy and exemption case.

However, since the plaintiff did not enter the creditor list because he was unaware of the existence of the obligation against the defendant, the debt against the defendant also has the effect of immunity from bankruptcy.

Therefore, we seek confirmation that the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant was exempted.

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has res judicata effect, where the party against whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party has been rendered files a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous judgment in favor of the party to the lawsuit, the subsequent

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for confirmation of discharge under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da96150, and the said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on September 10, 2015, and the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 1, 2015 is significant in this court.

Inasmuch as it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of exemption is the same as that of the above final judgment, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

3. The instant lawsuit is dismissed.