1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Seoul Rehabilitation Court rendered a decision to grant immunity as the Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2016Da2489, and the said decision became final and conclusive on October 14, 2016. Since C Company did not know the existence of the obligation before receiving an execution clause of payment order succession against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff does not constitute a non-exclusive claim under Article 566 proviso 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, is exempt from the liability by the said decision to grant immunity.

2. In relation to creditors with executive titles with respect to the judged obligation, the debtor's filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against claim and seeking the exclusion of executive force based on the effect of immunity becomes an effective and appropriate means to remove existing apprehensions and risks in legal status.

Therefore, in this case, seeking the confirmation of immunity is unlawful because it is not a final resolution of dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. In conclusion, we decide to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.