2. The Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant does not exist.

A. On April 26, 2006, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed C’s obligation to borrow 50 million won from the Defendant at the interest rate of 66% per annum, interest rate of delay, and due date of repayment on October 25, 2006.

(hereinafter referred to as the "joint and several liability of this case". (b)

On the other hand, on July 27, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the competent court on October 31, 2012, and was granted immunity in Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Da3241, 2009Hadan3239 (hereinafter “instant immunity”). The said immunity became final and conclusive on November 15, 2012, and the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff did not indicate the obligation of joint and several surety.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-4, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 1-2, and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In a case where a decision to grant permission to the debtor for the determination of the cause of the claim becomes final and conclusive, the debtor is exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditor (Articles 565 and 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). Thus, according to the above-mentioned facts, the joint and several surety obligations of this case that occurred prior to the decision to grant permission for the discharge becomes final and conclusive, and thus,

B. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not exempt the plaintiff's liability for the above joint and several several several several liability obligations against the defendant in bad faith on the list of creditors.

"Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where a debtor knows the existence of an obligation against a creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, when a debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of an obligation, the non-exempt claim under the above provision of the Act.