1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.

3...

1. On December 24, 1997, the Plaintiff lent KRW 6 million to Defendant B.

Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s debt owed to the Plaintiff.

On July 7, 1998, the Plaintiff supplied Defendant B with long-term brain ginseng equivalent to KRW 11.8 million.

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 6 million, and the Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay the borrowed amount of KRW 11.8 million.

2. We examine whether the lawsuit against the defendant B is legitimate, and whether the defendant B's defense prior to the merits of the case is examined.

Defendant B, upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity on July 26, 2006, asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Defendant B filed an application for immunity with the Chuncheon District Court 2005,381, and received immunity from the same court on July 7, 2006, and the said decision became final and conclusive on July 26, 2006, and thus, Defendant B became exempted from all obligations owed to bankruptcy creditors pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”).

The Plaintiff asserted that it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B’s debt owed to Defendant B was exempted solely on the basis of the fact that Defendant B received immunity, but this is merely an independent assertion contrary to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the assertion that “it shall not be exempted from liability pursuant to the proviso of Article 566 and subparagraph 7 of the same Article of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act,” there is no specific assertion or evidence to acknowledge it, and according to the evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the Plaintiff had an opportunity to raise an objection with the knowledge of Defendant B’s bankruptcy and exemption applications

The plaintiff's assertion is rejected.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, Defendant B borrowed KRW 26 million from the Plaintiff on June 30, 1998 on December 24, 1997, and Defendant C borrowed from the Plaintiff on June 30, 1998.