1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The existence of the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is an ex officio matter, and the court should decide ex officio regardless of the party's assertion.

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, etc., where a certain claim is disputed as to whether the debtor is a non-exempt claim despite the confirmation of immunity, the debtor may, by filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of immunity, eliminate the present danger in the legal position.

However, in relation to creditors with executive titles for the exempted obligation, the obligor’s filing of “an action of demurrer” and seeking to exclude executory force based on the effect of the exemption is a valid and appropriate means to eliminate the risks of present in the legal status. In such a case, seeking confirmation of exemption is unlawful because it is not a final resolution method of dispute, and it does not mean to resolve the dispute,

Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771 Decided October 12, 2017, referenced to the Supreme Court Decision 2017Da17771 Decided August 6, 2019, the Defendant’s payment order 2019Da909 Decided August 6, 2019 against the Plaintiff was finalized on September 25, 2019, and accordingly, the Defendant’s claim amounting to KRW 15 million and interest delay damages therefrom is recognized (No. 12-2). However, the instant lawsuit was brought for the purpose of preventing the Defendant from proceeding for compulsory execution according to the final and conclusive payment order order. As such, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of confirmation of exemption without filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, which is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate risks existing in the legal position, is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.