1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 2002, the Plaintiff, B, and C drafted a notarial deed of monetary loan for transfer security (No. 8947 of 2002) stating that “B, under C’s joint and several guarantee, borrowed KRW 8,500,000 to the Plaintiff at interest rate of 60% per annum, with a view to securing the performance of the said obligation, the Plaintiff, B, and C shall transfer their ownership to the Plaintiff by means of possession and amendment, and the Plaintiff shall acquire it by transfer.”

B. On March 24, 2003, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the seizure and collection order of this case”) as to the wage claim that C has against the Defendant under the Daegu District Court Decision 2003TTTT No. 2003TTT167,350 won ( principal amount of KRW 8,50,000, interest amount of KRW 4,513,150, enforcement expenses of KRW 133,200) based on the above authentic copy of the authentic deed, and the said order was served on the Defendant on March 27, 2003.

C. C: (a) was declared bankrupt on December 14, 2012 by the Daegu District Court 2012Hau3664, 2012Hau 3664 and 3664; and (b) was granted a decision to discontinue the bankruptcy and a decision to grant immunity on February 5, 2013; and (c) the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on February 20, 2013.

Meanwhile, the list of creditors prepared and submitted by C to the court while filing the above bankruptcy and application for immunity includes KRW 71,461,245 in total amount of claims nine creditors, such as the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of mutual savings banks on the day preceding the bankruptcy debtor, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation of mutual savings banks on the day preceding the bankruptcy debtor, and the Muuuu C&A loan, but the plaintiff's joint and several surety claim against C

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 7-1, 3, 4, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the payment of the collection amount according to the collection order of this case by the instant lawsuit, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim because C received the above immunity order.