1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

1. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was filed with the Incheon District Court in around 2015, 2015, the Incheon District Court rendered an application for immunity from 2015Handan 4948, and 2015Han 4952, and received a decision of bankruptcy on January 28, 2016 and a decision of immunity from immunity on September 1, 2016 from the above court.

However, at the time of filing a petition for bankruptcy and filing a petition for immunity, the Plaintiff did not erroneously state the Defendant’s obligations on the payment order stated in the claim against the Plaintiff.

However, according to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, if the plaintiff did not enter the list of creditors due to negligence, it is not reasonable to refuse to grant immunity, and the defendant issued a payment order to the plaintiff after the above decision of permission of bankruptcy and exemption, and urged the plaintiff to pay the debt.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has the interest in legal action against the defendant to obtain confirmation of exemption from the above obligation.

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

If a lawsuit for confirmation is lawful, the benefit of confirmation must be guaranteed as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation shall be recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate the risks of apprehensions in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.

According to the records in this case, on May 11, 2017, the Defendant received a credit card payment order of KRW 2,043,344, total of KRW 1,039,798 and interest 1,003,546 and KRW 2,043,344, which the Plaintiff received from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, from the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation. The Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff as the Seoul District Court 2017 tea12501, and the payment order was issued on May 12, 201, and the Plaintiff was served on the Plaintiff on May 30, 201, and the payment order was not raised by the Plaintiff.

6. It is recognized that the facts established on 14.1 (hereinafter “instant payment order”). According to the above facts recognized, the Defendant’s claims against the Plaintiff are executive titles.