1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 16, 2008, the defendant filed an application for the payment order against the plaintiff with the court of Jungcheon District Court 2008 (hereinafter "the payment order in this case") with the purport that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 9,753,000 won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from January 29, 2008 to the day of full payment" (hereinafter "the payment order in this case"). The above payment order was finalized on February 12, 2008.

B. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Hadan8169, and on February 4, 2015, the decision to grant immunity was finalized on March 3, 2015, upon receipt of the decision to grant immunity from Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da8169.

C. The list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the decision on immunity of this case did not state the Plaintiff’s obligation to return unjust enrichment based on the payment order of this case against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Litigations for confirmation of scambling are permitted when there is any danger or lack existing in rights or legal status, and the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risk or omission, i.e., where there is a benefit of protecting the rights of confirmation.

However, unlike the plaintiff's assertion, even if the obligation of the plaintiff against the defendant based on the payment order of this case does not constitute a claim omitted in the creditor list due to bad faith under the proviso of Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the effect of immunity decided by the plaintiff is naturally derived from the provisions of the main sentence of the same Article, and it does not need to be confirmed again as a judgment

Rather, even if the plaintiff is confirmed to have the effect of immunity as a judgment, it is not sufficient to enforce the payment order in this case.