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

A. On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff received a letter of credit guarantee for loan guarantee (a guarantee amount of KRW 9,000,000) from the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 10,000,000 from the bank of Korea Co., Ltd.

B. On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) caused a credit guarantee accident in which payment of interest on the loans of Korea banks was delayed; and (b) Korea bank notified the Defendant of the credit guarantee accident on September 20, 2016; and (c) on November 9, 2016, the Defendant subrogated for KRW 9,093,540 ( principal KRW 9,000,000) to Korea Bank on behalf of the Defendant based on the said credit guarantee certificate.

(hereinafter “instant subrogation”). C.

On August 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity from Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016Hadan58666, and 2016 Ma58666, and was granted immunity from immunity on March 29, 2017, which became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant decision on immunity”). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff entered the Nonparty Company’s Card, etc. in the list of creditors applying for bankruptcy and exemption, but did not enter the Plaintiff in the Bank or the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) did not know the fact that the Defendant did not have any claim and omitted in the credit inquiry statement in filing the instant application for exemption. The Plaintiff intentionally omitted only the Defendant’s claim and did not have any grounds for filing an application for bankruptcy. The Plaintiff’s decision on exemption of liability in the instant case asserted that the Plaintiff’s principal amounted to KRW 8,920,010 against the Defendant and the Defendant’s liability for damages and interest accrued after April 4, 2017 were exempted, and sought confirmation.

(2) As to this, the Defendant did not enter the claim for reimbursement against the Defendant in the list of creditors in bad faith even though the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the claim for reimbursement against the Defendant, so the Plaintiff is not exempt from the above obligation notwithstanding the decision of exemption of this case.