A. On October 194, the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff and C, and as a material security, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the Plaintiff and C, the Defendant, as the Cheongju District Court No. 33756, Oct. 22, 1994, with respect to the D apartment 3 and 106 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff, as the Cheongju District Court No. 33756, Oct. 22, 1994, with respect to the D apartment 106 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The apartment of this case was sold in accordance with the Cheongju District Court E voluntary auction procedure, but the defendant did not receive the distribution due to the existence of the senior mortgagee.

C. The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff, C, and F for a payment order with the Cheongju District Court 2007 tea196. On February 6, 2007, the said court issued a payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “The Plaintiff, C, and F jointly and severally paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 33 million per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

On March 5, 2007, the payment order of this case was served on G, the plaintiff's words "," and was finalized on March 20, 2007, and the remaining debtor C and F were withdrawn.

On the other hand, on October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff declared bankrupt as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Hadan28075, and filed an application for immunity with the same court as the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Hadan28075, May 24, 2010, and the said immunity decision became final and conclusive on December 1, 2010 upon receipt of each of the immunity decision on November 16, 201 (hereinafter “instant immunity decision”).

However, the plaintiff did not enter the defendant's loan claims in the list of creditors in the process of bankruptcy and application for immunity.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff does not intentionally omit the Defendant’s loan claims in the creditor list, and thus, the Plaintiff is exempt from the Plaintiff’s responsibility according to the decision to grant immunity in this case.

Therefore, this is applicable.