1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to seek the confirmation of the exemption from the obligation of the instant joint and several sureties, the Defendant’s assertion of such confirmation cannot be deemed an effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s risks existing in the legal status.

B. (1) In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only as the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendant in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s existing unstable risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.

Meanwhile, even if a judgment becomes final and conclusive, the res judicata does not extend to the legal relationship that caused the enforcement title, and thus, in cases where an obligor files a lawsuit to confirm the existence of an obligation, which caused the enforcement title, without filing a lawsuit to raise an objection to the enforcement title, and where the obligor files a lawsuit to confirm the existence of an obligation with respect to the obligation that caused the enforcement title, the lawsuit to confirm the existence of an obligation does not constitute unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, unless it is the sole purpose to exclude the enforcement force of enforcement title

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the effect of immunity in this case extends to the joint and several surety obligations in order to avoid seizure of the Plaintiff’s passbook upon the attachment of the Plaintiff’s passbook. (3) In this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the effect of immunity in this case extends to the instant joint and several surety obligations in order to avoid seizure of the Plaintiff’s passbook.