1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

As the Plaintiff was unaware of the existence of an obligation against the Defendant, the Plaintiff omitted in the case of bankruptcy and exemption (in the case of the instant bankruptcy and exemption) against the Defendant in the list of creditors, and sought confirmation of the Plaintiff’s exemption from the obligation against the Defendant.

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the lawsuit.

Where any claim is disputed whether a non-exempt claim is confirmed notwithstanding the confirmation of immunity for the debtor in bankruptcy, the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in his/her right or legal status.

However, in relation to the creditor who has executive title with respect to the exempted obligation, the debtor's filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim and seeking the exclusion of executive force based on the effect of the discharge becomes an effective and appropriate means to remove the existing apprehension and danger in the legal status

Therefore, even in such cases, seeking the confirmation of immunity is unlawful because it is not a final resolution of dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771 Decided October 12, 2017, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant is deemed to have executive title (Evidence B) with respect to the Plaintiff’s obligation for which exemption is sought by the Plaintiff. It is recognized that the Defendant has executive title (Evidence B) with respect to the Plaintiff’s obligation for which exemption is sought by the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s seeking confirmation of exemption without seeking exclusion of executive power by filing a suit of objection against the payment order cannot be deemed an effective and appropriate means to eliminate legal uncertainty.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful since there is no benefit of confirmation.

[On the other hand, the defendant is on the list of individual rehabilitation creditors in Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2012 16059, Suwon District Court 2014 73948.