Defendant C is from April 4, 2012 to KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant C, on April 3, 2012, took over the debt of KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff on the loan, thereby seeking payment of KRW 100 million to Defendant C and delayed damages. B. The judgment deeming the confession of the application of the law (Articles 208(3)2 and 150 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Part of the claim against the defendant B

A. On April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to Defendant B.

The defendant B asserts that he did not borrow money from the plaintiff and that he is exempted from the responsibility according to the immunity decision.

B. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Defendant B was granted immunity on August 31, 2017 (in Daejeon District Court 2017, 1). The bankruptcy claim under Articles 423 and 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act was not entered in the list of creditors requesting immunity.

Even if it does not fall under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the above Act, the effect of immunity is exempted from its liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). In addition, there is a loan claim against Defendant B by the Plaintiff on domestic affairs.

Even if this constitutes a bankruptcy claim due to the property claim arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above claim constitutes a non-defensive claim as stipulated in each subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act. Thus, according to the evidence No. 8 of the above, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the defendant B to the effect that the defendant B acquired KRW 100 million in collusion with the defendant C, but the non-prosecution decision was rendered on the ground

The plaintiff's claim of this case also has the effect of immunity.

(c)

Therefore, the instant lawsuit against Defendant B is unlawful and thus dismissed.