1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the obligation against the Defendant and omitted in the case of bankruptcy and exemption against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the obligation against the Defendant was exempted.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Notwithstanding the confirmation of decision to grant immunity to a debtor in bankruptcy, where certain claims are disputed as non-exempt claims, the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, eliminate the danger of present in the rights or legal status.

However, in relation to the creditor who has executive title with respect to the exempted obligation, the debtor's filing of a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim and seeking the exclusion of enforcement force based on the effect of the discharge becomes an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the present danger in the legal status

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

(Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771 Decided October 12, 2017). According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the Defendant has a title of execution (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016Da29461) with respect to the Plaintiff’s obligation to seek exemption. Thus, the Plaintiff’s filing of a suit of objection against the above payment order and seeking the confirmation of exemption through the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed an effective and adequate means to eliminate legal instability risks.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful since there is no benefit of confirmation.

Meanwhile, if Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 3 are proved as evidence Nos. 3, the plaintiff was granted immunity in the Seoul Central District Court 2016Da4741 case on November 2, 2016, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff was served the original copy of the above payment order on July 29, 2016, when the procedure was in progress.