1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the obligation stated in the claim against the Defendant was exempted due to the confirmation of immunity and the completion of extinctive prescription against himself/herself, and sought confirmation thereof.

2. With respect to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights in a lawsuit for confirmation, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to receive a judgment against the Defendant in order to eliminate the risks of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and there is a danger of infeasible in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.

However, as the Plaintiff revealed in the cause of the claim, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of loans with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012Da122140, Jan. 21, 2013, “Defendant referring to the Plaintiff.” The Plaintiff refers to the Defendant of this case. The Plaintiff shall pay 10 million won and 20% interest per annum from December 15, 2012 to the date of full payment.” This judgment can be recognized as having become final and conclusive around that time. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is aimed at excluding compulsory execution with the judgment of No. 2012Ga12140 as executive title. Even if the Plaintiff is confirmed to have the effect of immunity by judgment, that alone does not preclude the enforcement of the said judgment.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed an effective and adequate means to seek the confirmation of discharge as a lawsuit in this case, separate from seeking the exclusion of the executory power of the above executive titles through the lawsuit of demurrer.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.