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

A. On January 3, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 22 million to Defendant B as of December 3, 2010 with interest monthly and due date until December 3, 2010, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed this.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

On June 9, 2010, Defendant B filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Gwangju District Court 2010Hadan2554 and 2010Ha2554, and was declared bankrupt on January 31, 201 by the above court, and was granted immunity on September 29, 201, and the above immunity exemption became final and conclusive on October 15, 201.

C. On June 9, 2010, Defendant C filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Gwangju District Court 2010Hadan2553 and 2010Ha253, and was declared bankrupt on August 29, 2011 by the said court. Defendant C was granted immunity on September 29, 201, and the said immunity became final and conclusive on October 15, 201.

The Defendants omitted the instant loan claims in the list of creditors of each of the above bankruptcy and exemption cases.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the instant loan to the Plaintiff, notwithstanding each of the above immunity decisions, since the Defendants omitted the instant loan claims intentionally or in bad faith in the process of each of the above immunity decisions.

B. The Defendants, around January 3, 2010, did not borrow KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff, but did not lend KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s son on July 20, 2007, adding interest to KRW 220 million, and subsequently drafted a new certificate of loan between D and D in the name of the Plaintiff. The Defendants reported their obligations to D in the course of each of the above immunity decision. ② Even if each of the above immunity decision was made, the instant loans were omitted in the list of creditors of each of the above bankruptcy and immunity cases.

Even if it is not intentional or malicious, it is argued that the loan claim in this case was exempted from immunity according to the above immunity decision.

3. Determination. (a)