1. On August 26, 2010, the Plaintiff’s liability for reimbursement under the joint and several liability agreement against the Defendant is KRW 29,961,472.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s wife entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Defendant on August 26, 2010, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s indemnity liability.

On April 6, 2011, the Defendant paid to D Association KRW 14,514,019 on behalf of the Defendant, and acquired C and the claim for indemnity against the Plaintiff.

(B) The Plaintiff’s obligation of indemnity against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant obligation”).

C and the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Suwon District Court on August 14, 2012 and became final and conclusive upon receipt of each exemption decision under 6181, 2012, 6177.

C. At the time of the above bankruptcy and exemption application, C entered the Defendant in the list of creditors, but the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant in the list of creditors.

As of September 10, 2019, the debt of this case as of September 10, 2019 is the total of KRW 29,961,472.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s obligation of this case was discharged, barring special circumstances.

The defendant defenses that the plaintiff did not enter the defendant in the list of creditors because he knew of the existence of the debt of this case, but the plaintiff did not enter the defendant in the list of creditors. However, as revealed in the above facts, the plaintiff did not enter the defendant in the list of creditors when Eul and the plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption, but omitted it. In full view of the plaintiff's assertion that only C was the debtor because he failed to properly memory the fact that the plaintiff had jointly and severally guaranteed obligation, and the plaintiff did not have any specific reason to intentionally omit it, the circumstance that the plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption of the debt of this case is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff did not enter the defendant in the list of creditors in bad faith, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is the same.