1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. At the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Ulsan District Court for the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff omitted the obligation based on the instant payment order (hereinafter “instant obligation”). This did not err by omitting the Plaintiff’s failure to memory, but did not err in bad faith, and thus, sought confirmation of exemption from the instant obligation.

2. Since the existence of the benefit of confirmation in the lawsuit for confirmation of the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case is a matter of ex officio examination, the court should decide ex officio regardless of the party's assertion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006). In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the defendant when there is an apprehension or risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status and removing such apprehension or risk.

Notwithstanding the confirmation of decision to grant immunity to a debtor in bankruptcy, where any claim is disputed whether a non-exempt claim, etc., the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in his/her rights 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). Even if the Plaintiff is confirmed to have the effect of immunity for the instant obligation by judgment, this alone is against the Defendant, a creditor who has executive title.