1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Hadan4305, 2007Da44335, and received a decision on immunity on March 7, 2008 (hereinafter “instant decision on immunity”). The Plaintiff omitted the obligation described in the purport of the claim against the Defendant in the list of creditors of the decision on immunity (hereinafter “instant obligation”).

B. Meanwhile, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff to seek the performance of the obligation of this case and was sentenced to a judgment citing the claim, which became final and conclusive on July 3, 2008.

(Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2008Gaso92313 decided June 11, 2008; hereinafter "the judgment of this case") No. 2. Judgment on this case's defense

A. With respect to the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff sought exemption from the instant obligation, the Defendant’s claim for such confirmation cannot be deemed an effective and appropriate means to eliminate risks existing in the Plaintiff’s legal status, and thus, is unlawful.

B. A lawsuit raising an objection to a judgment is aimed at excluding the executory power held by an executive title, and even if the judgment becomes final and conclusive, res judicata does not extend to the legal relationship that caused the executive title. Therefore, in a case where an obligor files a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation with respect to the obligation that caused the executive title without filing a lawsuit seeking an objection to the claim, and where the obligor files a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation with respect to the obligation that caused the executive title, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da108863 Decided May 9, 2013). However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff did not dispute the legal relationship under substantive law, such as the existence and scope of the instant obligation, which is the cause of the instant judgment, but rather, the effect of the decision on immunity in this case to avoid seizure of the Plaintiff’s passbook upon the instant judgment.