2. The action against the defendant shall be dismissed;

3. The plaintiff.

A. The progress of the instant case (1) was not possible to serve a duplicate of the complaint on the Defendant in the first instance trial of this case, and the trial was conducted by public notice.

The judgment of the first instance is pronounced on February 1, 2007, and the same year.

3. 27. formally finalized.

The judgment of the first instance is not written in accordance with the Trial of Small Claims Act.

(2) On January 22, 2014, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion, and among them, the record of the first instance trial was destroyed after the preservation period expires.

B. On April 16, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred a loan claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim”) to the succeeding intervenor on the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor.

(2) On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the transfer of the instant claim by means of content-certified mail.

On December 11, 2013, an succeeding intervenor received an execution clause succeeded to the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court of this case.

C. On March 29, 2013, the Defendant received a decision to grant immunity from the Defendant (Ulsan District Court 201Da537, 201Hadan537).

This ruling shall be made for the same year.

4. 13. A final and conclusive date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 7-1 and 7-2, facts with merit in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the Defendant’s lawsuit against the Defendant is lawful or not was granted immunity after the judgment of the first instance court of this case.

The claim in this case shall lose the power and executory power of filing a lawsuit which has ordinary claims under the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

A lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the instant claim is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

3. The lawsuit against the defendant is unlawful and thus dismissed, and the decision of the court of first instance regarding the defendant shall be revoked and the lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.