1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 19, 2012, the Defendant entered into an electricity use contract with B, and on April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation under the said contract.

B. On September 16, 2014, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for an order of payment seeking the payment of electric utility fee under the above contract with the Cheongju District Court 2013j145, Cheongju District Court 2013, Cheongju District Court, and the said court ordered the Defendant to pay “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 62,152,000 and the interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 24, 2013 to the date of full payment.” The said order was served on the Plaintiff on September 23, 2013, and became final and conclusive on October 8, 2013.

C. On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained immunity from the Daejeon District Court (2016.2119), and the decision became final and conclusive around that time. The list of creditors of the above immunity decision is omitted by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1, 2, and 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s claim was omitted in the list of creditors at the time when the Plaintiff claimed immunity, but was not intentionally omitted, and thus, the Defendant’s claim also remains effective and its confirmation is sought.

3. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment against the defendant when there is an infeasible danger in the plaintiff's rights or legal status and removing the apprehensions.

In addition, where a title exists, such as a claim based on a final payment order, the mere fact that immunity was granted, does not automatically lose the effect of enforcement title. However, this is merely an substantial reason to exclude enforcement power of enforcement title through a lawsuit of objection to a claim.

Supreme Court Dated September 16, 2013