1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the effect of the exemption extends to the Defendant’s obligations against the Plaintiff and filed a claim for the confirmation of exemption. As such, the Plaintiff was granted immunity from the Daegu District Court at the Daegu District Court at the Daegu District Court at KRW 2013Hadan595, 2013 and 595 on its creditor’s list, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation of exemption.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the promotion mutual savings bank, which is the transferor of claims, received a payment order with the plaintiff as the debtor, and the defendant transferred the claims to the plaintiff several times, so the notification and demand notice of the assignment of claims are sent to the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff cannot be exempted from liability because it

2. Examining the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio, the instant lawsuit claiming the confirmation of discharge on the following grounds is unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit. Immunity does not constitute a ground to automatically lose the validity of the executive title with respect to the exempted obligation, but is merely an substantial reason to exclude the executive title through a claim objection suit.

(Supreme Court Order 2013Ma1438 Decided September 16, 2013). According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the promotion mutual savings bank received an order to pay the amount to the Plaintiff from the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of the District Court on September 15, 2006 to the Plaintiff from 2006Da5856, and the Plaintiff received the said amount from the promotion mutual savings bank on June 15, 201.

Since a payment order, which is the executive title, was issued, the plaintiff, who is the debtor, was granted immunity in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, does not lose its executive force as a matter of course.

Ultimately, the instant lawsuit claiming the confirmation of exemption rather than an action of demurrer to remove executory power cannot be an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s present apprehension and danger in the legal status.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the lawsuit of this case which is not lawful.