1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity and immunity with the District Court Decision 201Da5380, 2011Hadan5390, and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on March 5, 2014.

However, in the above bankruptcy and immunity case, the Plaintiff did not enter in the list of creditors the claims stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claims”).

B. The Defendant filed a payment order against the Plaintiff to seek payment of the instant claim with the Seoul Central District Court 2014 tea28180, and the payment order was issued on May 13, 2014, and the said payment order was finalized as it is.

(hereinafter referred to as the "instant payment order") / [Grounds for recognition] / A 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not recognize the existence of the claim in this case at the time of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity, and omitted it in the creditor list, but did not reach a bad faith, and thus, the claim in this case is also exempted by the above decision of immunity, and thus, the plaintiff seeks confirmation.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff was not in bad faith omitted from the bonds of this case, and thus, it is non-exempt bonds and there is no interest in the lawsuit.

3. ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, the benefit of confirmation, which is the legal requirement of the instant lawsuit, is not recognized solely on the fact that there is a dispute over the legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but it is acknowledged where the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and adequate means when the Plaintiff’s legal status is at risk of unstable.

In regard to this case, the defendant already has the executive title under the payment order of this case against the plaintiff, and the purpose pursued by the plaintiff as the lawsuit of this case has been initiated, regardless of whether the procedure of enforcement has been initiated at present.