1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of discharge among the lawsuits in this case is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 16, 1998, the Defendant lent KRW 23,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s husband C to the Plaintiff’s husband C by setting the due date on February 28, 1999; the interest rate of 2%; and the payment date of interest; and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant C.

(2) On October 16, 1998, when the Defendant, C, and the Plaintiff concluded a debt repayment contract with the Plaintiff, a notary public prepared a notarial deed of debt repayment contract No. 2022 of the 198 General Law Office (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) to recognize compulsory execution in the event that the Plaintiff and C did not perform a monetary obligation under the above contract, on October 16, 1998.

B. On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff and C filed each application for immunity with the Daegu District Court No. 2014Hadan5060, 2014Hadan5060, and the same court No. 2014Hadan5061, 2014 5061 and 5061.

At the time of the above application, the Plaintiff did not enter the claim of this case in the list of creditors, but C entered the Defendant’s claim for the loan based on the Notarial Deed in the list of creditors.

C. On October 6, 2015, the Daegu District Court rendered a decision to grant immunity (hereinafter “decision to grant immunity”) to the Plaintiff, and the said decision became final and conclusive on October 21, 2015.

On the other hand, the decision of immunity against C was made on January 27, 2016, and the above decision became final and conclusive on February 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 or 5 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleading

2. Ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for confirmation of discharge among the lawsuit in this case

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of relevant legal principles, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is most likely to be rendered by a judgment against the defendant to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and infeasible and danger.