1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 28, 2009, the promotion mutual savings bank filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2009Gada1128091, and received a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter "decision on performance recommendation of this case") from the above court on March 7, 2009. The decision on performance recommendation of this case (the plaintiff shall pay to the promotion mutual savings bank corporation 10,39,562 won and 2,991,467 won, which was 40% per annum from November 5, 2008 to the full payment date) was finalized on February 18, 2009, by serving the plaintiff on March 7, 2009.

B. The promoting mutual savings bank transferred all the above loans and all all the incidental rights to the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims.

On the other hand, on March 8, 2016, the Defendant was granted a successor execution clause regarding the instant decision on performance recommendation.

C. On April 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Busan District Court No. 2014, 1059 and 2014Hadan10599 (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and exemption”) from the said court on September 29, 2014, upon receipt of exemption from the court on November 29, 2014, the bankruptcy decision on October 14, 2014, and the exemption from immunity on December 5, 2014 (hereinafter “instant exemption from immunity”). D.

At the time of bankruptcy and immunity of this case, the Plaintiff omitted the Defendant’s claim based on the Defendant’s decision on this case’s recommendation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-5's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings, and significant facts in this court

2. The Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant based on the decision on the instant recommendation of performance based on the grounds of the bankruptcy and decision on immunity. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is to eliminate the plaintiff's right or legal status in danger, and there is apprehension and risk.