1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Hadan5245, 2015Ma5245, and received a decision of immunity from the said court (hereinafter “decision of immunity from this case”). The said decision became final and conclusive on December 16, 2015.

However, the plaintiff did not enter the obligation to pay goods to the defendant in the list of creditors submitted at the time of the above bankruptcy and exemption.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for the payment of KRW 8,271,00 for the goods and for delay damages therefor. The Seoul Southern District Court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant on March 9, 2016 as the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a favorable judgment on March 9, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 7, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, substantial facts in this court, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that at the time of the application for bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff did not intentionally omit the obligation to the Defendant for the payment of the goods against the Defendant in the list of creditors, and accordingly, sought exemption confirmation by asserting that the obligation to pay the goods against the Defendant was exempted according to the instant decision on immunity.

3. Ex officio, determination is made on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is the most effective means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant received the instant judgment against the Plaintiff after the decision of immunity of the instant case became final and conclusive is as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff, a debtor, reversed or reversed the final and conclusive judgment.