1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Seoul Central District Court rendered a loan claim lawsuit against the plaintiff (2006 Ghana 1961082) on October 26, 2006, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay 3 million won and 58% interest per annum from July 25, 2002 to the day of complete payment" and the above judgment was finalized on December 7, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant obligation”) b. the obligation based on the above judgment.

Upon filing an application for immunity and bankruptcy on November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff was granted immunity and the said decision became final and conclusive on December 16, 2012 (in cases of the Suwon District Court Decision 201Handan9172, 2011, 9172; hereinafter “instant immunity”) and omitted the entry of the instant debt in the list of creditors at the time of the application for immunity and bankruptcy (hereinafter “instant immunity”).

C. The defendant, who is the trustee in bankruptcy of Seoul Mutual Savings Bank, is the above A.

For the extension of the prescription period of the judgment deposit claim stated in paragraph (1), the Seoul Central District Court issued a payment order against the Plaintiff (2017 tea373121) on October 14, 2016, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 23,503,071 and KRW 2,937,50 per annum 27.9% per annum from September 28, 2016 to the date of full payment,” and the payment order was served on November 14, 2016, and the above payment order became final and conclusive on November 29, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of and judgment on the party's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the exemption effect does not extend to the instant obligation since it was not intentional to omit the entry of the instant obligation in the creditor list. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim does not have any interest in confirmation, since it became final and conclusive as it did not raise any objection even though the Plaintiff was served with the instant payment order.

(b)in litigation for confirmation, protection of rights;