1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2010, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) borrowed KRW 19,500,000 for the new installment payment from the Defendant’s succeeding Intervenor (hereinafter “instant debt”), and the Plaintiff, who was the representative director of the Nonparty Company, guaranteed the said loan obligation on the same day.

B. On November 19, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for immunity with the former Jeju District Court 2010Hadan3368, which was the former District Court 2010Hadan3368, to grant immunity from October 22, 2012, and the said immunity was finalized on November 6, 2012. The Plaintiff omitted the entry of the instant obligation against the Defendant’s succeeding Intervenor in the list of creditors at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and immunity.

C. On April 6, 2011, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor filed a lawsuit against the non-party company and the Plaintiff seeking the repayment of the instant debt with the Suwon District Court 201Gau9709, Suwon District Court 201. On October 6, 2011, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor rendered a judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) that “the payment of 17,647,932 won and 17,091,545 won to the succeeding intervenor jointly and severally by the foreign company and the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor at the rate of 24% per annum from February 26, 2011 to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Around May 4, 2016, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor transferred the above loans to the Defendant, but around May 24, 2018, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor redeemed the above loans from the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 13 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the instant debt by negligence at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption, and omitted the instant debt in the creditor list, and thus, the effect of immunity extends to the instant debt. The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor did not recognize the existence of the instant debt.