2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

2. As the plaintiff himself/herself is also a person, the decision to grant immunity [the decision to grant immunity in this case] to the plaintiff is not based on Article 564 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, but based on Article 624 (2) of the same Act, which is not subject to Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the same Act, and Article 625 (2) 1 of the same Act is applied, not subject to Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the same Act, and it does not have the effect of immunity for claims that are not entered in the list of individual rehabilitation creditors. In light of each of the statements in Gap 1 and 2, it is recognized that the list of individual rehabilitation creditors of this case does not contain the claims in this case against the defendant's plaintiff, so the decision to grant immunity in this case does not have the effect of the decision to grant immunity in this case against the defendant's plaintiff, and the plaintiff's aforementioned assertion is not acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 98 and the latter part of Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.