1. The plaintiffs' lawsuits against defendant E are dismissed.

2. Defendant C and D shall be jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for KRW 65,000,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2009, Defendant C borrowed KRW 130,000,000 from the Plaintiffs (the principal of the vehicle’s principal amounting to KRW 100,000,000, interest KRW 30,000,000) as the due date for payment, and the agreed rate of KRW 1.5% per month. Defendant D and Defendant E guaranteed Defendant C’s above loan obligation.

B. On April 29, 2013, Defendant E received bankruptcy and immunity from the Suwon District Court 2012:2840 and 2012Hadan2840 on May 14, 2013, and the decision to grant immunity from the above bankruptcy became final and conclusive on May 14, 2013; however, at the time, Defendant E did not enter the Plaintiffs’ joint and several surety claims against Defendant E in the list of creditors.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant E

A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides, “The debtor shall be entitled to a bankruptcy claim against the property claim arising before the declaration of bankruptcy.” The main text of Article 566 of the same Act provides, “The exempted debtor shall be exempted from the responsibility for all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors, except for dividends arising from the bankruptcy procedures.”

The exemption here means that the obligation itself continues to exist, but it is not possible to enforce the performance to the bankrupt debtor.

Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, a claim that has been granted immunity would lose the ordinary capacity to file a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Meanwhile, “a claim that is not recorded in the list of creditors in bad faith by an obligor” under Article 566 proviso 7 of the Act refers to a case where a debtor knowingly knows the existence of an obligation to a bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter the same in the list of creditors. Therefore, when the debtor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he/she was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it constitutes non