대여금
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of each claim against the Defendant (Appointed) and the Appointed C shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff.
1. According to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, among the lawsuits in this case, a debtor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from liability for the whole of the obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends under the bankruptcy procedure. Therefore, a bankruptcy claim arising from the cause before the debtor is declared bankrupt becomes final and conclusive under the above Act, and the claims arising from the cause before the debtor is declared bankrupt shall be extinguished, and the right to file a lawsuit and the power of execution that have ordinary claims due to the natural obligation shall be lost.
According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 ex officio, the defendant and the appointed party C were declared bankrupt on June 11, 2008, and the same year.
8. The fact that the decision became final and conclusive upon the decision of immunity on 26. 208 (the defendant: the Seoul Central District Court 2008Da8582, 2008Hadan8582, the Appointed C: the above court 2008Hadan81, 2008Hadan8581). The loan claims of this case claimed by the plaintiff constitute bankruptcy claims arising before the above bankruptcy is declared. Since there is no evidence that the defendant and the selected C intentionally omitted the plaintiff's claim in the above bankruptcy and immunity procedure, the defendant and the selected C were exempted from the liability to repay the loan obligations of this case due to the above immunity.
Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part against the defendant and the appointed party C is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.
2. Determination as to claims filed against Appointors D and E
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent to the defendant 90 million won interest monthly, the due date of repayment of 2,000 won on December 10, 2007, and at least one million won per month from January 2008. Since the selected parties D and E are jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant's obligation to borrow the borrowed money, the selected parties D and E are jointly and severally liable to pay 90 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.
B. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-2 and 1-2, it is so argued by the plaintiff.