1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Defendant, taking out a loan of KRW 80 million from a national bank.

B. On November 13, 2007, the defendant acquired a claim for indemnity equivalent to the amount of the principal and interest of the plaintiff's 28,643,158 won by subrogation (hereinafter "claim for indemnity of this case"). On January 23, 2008, the Jeju District Court filed a lawsuit claiming indemnity amount against the plaintiff, which was sentenced to a favorable judgment on January 23, 2008. The above judgment became final and conclusive on February 16, 2008.

(hereinafter “final judgment of this case”). C.

On April 2, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Incheon District Court No. 2008Hadan3289, 2008 3294, which became final and conclusive on May 27, 2009 (hereinafter “instant immunity”). On June 11, 2009, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the said application, the claim for reimbursement of this case is omitted.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A lawsuit seeking objection as to whether a claim is lawful is for the purpose of excluding the executory power held by an executory power, and even if a judgment becomes final and conclusive, res judicata does not extend to the legal relationship that caused the executory power, and thus, in cases where a debtor files a lawsuit seeking objection against an executory power and files a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an executory power on a debt that caused the executory power, barring the executory power of the executory power, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an executory power cannot be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da108863 Decided May 9, 2013). However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff did not dispute the existence and scope of the claim for reimbursement of this case, which was the cause of the final and conclusive judgment, concerning the legal relationship under substantive law, such as the existence and scope of the claim for reimbursement of this case, and the effect of the exemption from immunity