1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 30, 2014 to February 29, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. According to the evidence No. 1 to 5 of the judgment as to the cause for the claim, the facts are recognized as identical to the statement on the cause for the claim. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the insurance proceeds paid on behalf of the Plaintiff KRW 100,00,000, and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed in the Civil Act from September 30, 2014 to February 29, 2016, which is the day following the day of delivery of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 15% per annum prescribed in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The parties’ assertion 1) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was declared bankrupt by Busan District Court 2015Hadan1677, and that the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant was unlawful since it is currently in progress with immunity procedures. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant against the Defendant was not exempted from liability because it is a claim for damages due to intentional tort.

B. Determination 1) Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that “A debtor who has been exempted shall be exempted from all liabilities to bankruptcy creditors except for dividends under the bankruptcy procedure: Provided, That no liability shall be exempted with respect to the following claims; however, Article 56 of the same Act provides that a claim shall not be exempted from the liability for damages caused by an obligor’s intentional act.” (2) According to the evidence No. 4 of the same Act, the Plaintiff can be acknowledged as a vicarious exercise of the right to claim damages acquired by the said company against the Defendant in relation to “the act of the Defendant using the amount received by his/her customer while serving as his/her employee, or arbitrarily shipping inventory goods.”

This constitutes a claim that is not exempt from liability even if the defendant is granted immunity for the family affairs as the "right to claim damages due to intentional tort by the defendant."