1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3:

As Busan District Court Decision 2007Ka27750, the Plaintiff received a payment order ordering the Defendant to pay the Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 37.5 million and its delay damages. The above payment order was finalized around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”) B.

After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the District Court Nos. 2011Hadan461, 201Ma461, and the Plaintiff was granted immunity on August 30, 2012, and the aforementioned immunity became final and conclusive around that time. At the time, the Plaintiff did not enter the obligations arising from the instant payment order in the list of creditors.

(2) On February, 200, the Plaintiff, as to the legitimacy of the suit, did not enter the decision in the list of creditors because he was unaware of the existence of the obligation based on the payment order of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the above obligation does not constitute a non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act and sought confirmation that the above obligation was exempted by the decision of immunity of this case.

However, a lawsuit for confirmation requires the 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 from the defendant when taking a confirmation judgment against the defendant in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger, anxiety, and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). In addition, a decision of immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act became final and conclusive

Even if executive titles are not naturally invalidated, and if it is intended to exclude executive titles, a lawsuit of objection shall be filed against the claim.

Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438 Decided September 16, 2013