1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the obligor who has been exempted from the liability shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors, except dividends pursuant to 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 ordinary claims should lose the ability to file a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). According to the evidence No. 3-1-3 of the evidence No. 1-3, the fact that the Defendant rendered bankruptcy and application to grant immunity on December 26, 2018 and received a decision to grant immunity on July 17, 2019 upon receipt of the decision to grant immunity on July 17, 2019 (Ulsan District Court Decision 2018Du5474, Feb. 5474, 2018) that became final and conclusive on July 17, 2019 (Ulsan District Court Decision 2018Du5474, Sept. 10, 201).

The remaining 47,396,460 won claims and damages for delay claims among the proceeds of goods, such as Handphones, supplied from 2012 to 31 October 2016, which the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant by the instant lawsuit, constitute bankruptcy claims as property claims arising from reasons arising before bankruptcy is declared.

Since the defendant was exempted from liability for the above claim upon confirmation of the above decision to grant immunity, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful because there is no benefit to protect the rights.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

The judgment of the first instance court is unfair with different conclusions, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the judgment of the first instance and rejecting the lawsuit of this case.