Since D's debt is likely to be restored after it has become possible to be restored, D's debt cannot be viewed as "a debt which is not invalid or nonexistent."

The defendant only notified D of the risk that his obligation may be restored to D by a text message.

In addition, the defendant was only exempted from the debt guaranteed by the D individual, and there was no fact that he exempted from the debt guaranteed by the E Co., Ltd. or F Co., Ltd., and D is the actual operator of the above two companies, so the above two companies' debt should also be repaid D.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the above Act to send the above text messages to D.

The Defendant, while driving a vehicle at the time of the instant case, was unable to feel a sense that the vehicle was in contact with the J’s bridge, and rather, the J was partly against the vehicle.

Simplely, vehicle number plates cannot be viewed as assaulting the body of a person, and there was no intention to attack the defendant with the J.

D Upon receiving D’s instructions, the J et al. put a threat on the Defendant’s boarding vehicle, and the Defendant deemed to have been driving the vehicle as the only way to protect the safety, and thus, the illegality of the vehicle is excluded due to party defense or emergency evacuation.

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below related to the violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as to the grounds for appeal, i.e., C Co., Ltd., which was entrusted with all rights to debt collection by the creditor YD Co., Ltd., a creditor, exempted D from debt guarantee obligations to D, and exempted D from debt guarantee obligations on December 9, 2014.