2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 30 million and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant received immunity from the court in the bankruptcy proceeding, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

B. In full view of the respective entries and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact that the Defendant was declared bankrupt on July 8, 2013 by this Court No. 2013Han-44, and the Defendant was granted immunity on February 10, 2014 by this Court.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant’s obligation to borrow funds against the Plaintiff asserted by the Plaintiff is exempted from its responsibility by the above immunity decision and became natural obligation.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit against the defendant for its implementation.

C. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion 1), the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant against the Defendant constitutes a claim for damages arising from an intentional tort committed by deceiving the Plaintiff without the intent of repayment, and thus, constitutes a claim that is not exempt from immunity through the court’s immunity. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant acquired the amount of the above loan by deceiving the Plaintiff [the Plaintiff was prosecuted as the charge of fraud that the Defendant acquired the above loan by deceiving the Defendant, but the Ulsan District Court acquitted the Plaintiff on October 5, 2018.

(2) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit. 2) The Plaintiff, a debtor, is in bad faith to the obligee’s list.