대여금
1. The part concerning the selected person B in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to that part shall be dismissed;
1. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the legitimacy of the suit against the Appointor B was asserting that, between August 2011 and March 6, 2014, the Appointor B provided loans for several times, and that, if the loans amount to KRW 10 million or more, the interest calculated at the rate of 1% per month was agreed to be paid. On May 30, 2015, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remaining principal and interest KRW 63,553,681 and interest KRW 6,073,30, and delay damages for each of the above amounts, excluding the amount partially repaid by May 30, 2015.
Accordingly, the Appointed B asserts that he/she was declared bankrupt and granted immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “DRB”), and that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Appointed B is unlawful.
The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that the debtor who is exempted from liability shall be exempted from all liability to the bankruptcy creditors except for the distribution under the bankruptcy procedure.
Here, exemption refers to a debtor in existence of his/her obligation, but it is impossible to enforce the discharge to the debtor. As such, the discharge becomes final and conclusive, and the discharge to the debtor becomes final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). In full view of the health class and the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 13, the designated party B, who was declared bankrupt on May 26, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No2458, Dec. 2458, 2014, and the said immunity becomes final and conclusive upon the Plaintiff’s exemption from discharge on October 10, 2014, as a claim, such as a loan sought against the designated party B arising from a cause prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff lost the ability of the designated party’s right to grant immunity and its executive force.
(c).