1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and application for immunity”) with the Suwon District Court No. 2016, 3155, 2016Hadan3155 (hereinafter “instant application for immunity”), and was subject to the adjudication of bankruptcy on January 10, 2017, and the decision to grant immunity on March 22, 2017 (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”). The instant decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on April 6, 2017.

At the time of the decision to grant immunity of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim to the Defendant in the list of creditors (hereinafter “instant claim”) was omitted, and the obligation was omitted.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan82031, and the above court rendered a judgment on October 14, 2014 that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 39,435,307 won and 34,000,000 won with interest rate of 18% per annum from March 29, 2014 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant obligation was not omitted in the creditor list in bad faith in the course of obtaining the decision to grant the immunity of the instant case, and thus, the instant obligation was also exempted according to the decision to grant immunity.

However, there is apprehensions about the legal status of the Plaintiff, such as being urged to repay the instant obligation from the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm the exemption of the obligation of this case in order to eliminate such existing danger and injury.

3. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right, and the benefit of confirmation is infeasible danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and the risk is unstable.