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

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was a member of the fraternity operated by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not pay 2,9710,000 won of the credit payment, even when he was receiving the time limit deposit.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was granted a decision to grant bankruptcy immunity.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of the evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant, on December 3, 2013, was granted immunity in the Busan District Court 2013-Ma738 (Declaration of Bankruptcy) and confirmed the fact that became final and conclusive around that time.

When such immunity becomes final and conclusive, claims not listed in the creditor list are also subject to immunity.

On the other hand, the main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the debtor who has been exempted from the liability is exempted from the liability for all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends under the bankruptcy procedures.

The exemption here means that the obligation itself continues to exist, but it is not possible to enforce the performance to the bankrupt debtor.

Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, the claim exempted shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit with ordinary claims (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, when the fraternity members were gathered, said that “if the Plaintiff files an application for exemption from personal bankruptcy during the delivery of the fraternity members, the Plaintiff would be dismissed if the Plaintiff files an application for exemption from individual bankruptcy,” and accordingly, said claim is asserted to the effect that the Defendant did not enter the claims related to the Plaintiff in the list of creditors, but there is no evidence to support the assertion.

Therefore, according to the confirmation of decision to grant immunity against the defendant, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights. It is so decided as per Disposition.