1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 6, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained a credit card loan of KRW 4.9 million from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Moll Capital”).

B. Hyundai Capital, upon filing a loan claim lawsuit against the Plaintiff by the Daegu District Court 2010 Ghana10637, the Daegu District Court decided to recommend performance on July 28, 2010. The said decision was served on the Plaintiff on August 8, 2010, and became final and conclusive on September 2, 2010.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). (c)

Mog Capital, on August 9, 2010, received the decision of provisional seizure against the Plaintiff (Tgu District Court 2010Kadan7331), and on April 26, 201, respectively, the decision of seizure and collection order was issued against the Plaintiff. The above decision of collection order was served on the Plaintiff on May 31, 201.

On January 20, 201, the Plaintiff rendered bankruptcy and application for immunity (hereinafter “instant immunity”) with the Daegu District Court Decision 201Hau390, 201Hau 390, 201-390, and the decision to grant immunity was finalized on November 1, 2011 (hereinafter “instant immunity”). The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the said application is omitted from the claim for the said loans against the Plaintiff of Hyundai Capital (hereinafter “instant loan claim”).

E. On April 29, 2015, Hyundai Capital transferred the instant loan claims to the Defendant, and on June 5, 2015, notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although a judgment becomes final and conclusive, the res judicata effect does not extend to the legal relationship that caused the enforcement title, inasmuch as a lawsuit seeking objection against the legitimacy of a lawsuit in this case is filed for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation that caused the enforcement title, insofar as the purpose of the lawsuit is not to exclude the enforcement force of the enforcement title, the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the existence of an obligation is confirmed, insofar as the purport of the lawsuit is not solely to exclude the enforcement force of the enforcement title.