1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of discharge among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's District Court against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for reimbursement with the District Court Decision 2010Gau20714, the Defendant received a decision on performance recommendation with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 13,855,235 to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom,” and the said decision on performance recommendation was finalized on June 4, 2010 following the delivery to the Plaintiff on June 19, 2010.

B. On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy immunity application with Daejeon District Court 2013Hadan29952013, 3002, and was granted immunity on April 30, 2014. The aforementioned immunity exemption became final and conclusive on May 15, 2014.

C. The Defendant’s claim for reimbursement on the basis of the Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation was not stated in the list of creditors drafted in the above bankruptcy exemption case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff in the part of the claim for confirmation of discharge is based on the final decision on performance recommendation, which is the executive title, and the fact that there was immunity in the event of enforcement title does not necessarily lose the effect of enforcement title. However, it is merely an substantial reason to exclude enforcement power of enforcement title through a lawsuit of objection.

(see Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438, Sept. 16, 2013). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff is confirmed to have the effect of immunity by judgment, the Plaintiff’s apprehension that compulsory execution may be carried out from the Defendant does not still have been removed. As seen below, it cannot be deemed as an effective and appropriate means to eliminate legal anxiety risks, and thus, there is no interest in the Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

B. According to the basic facts as to the ground for appeal 1 as to the part of the claim objection, the defendant's claim for reimbursement of the above performance recommendation decision against the plaintiff.