1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the defendant did not dispute, on December 14, 2007, lent to the plaintiff on December 14, 2007 the interest rate of KRW 50 million at 24% per annum, the due date set on March 14, 2008, and the fact that the notarial deed of a monetary loan loan contract was made on the same day does not conflict between the parties.

2. The Plaintiff, as to whether repayment was made, asserts that C’s repayment of KRW 50 million to the Defendant on March 12, 2008 and the said loan claim was extinguished.

C The fact that he remitted 50 million won to the defendant's account on March 12, 2008 is no dispute between the parties.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant still holds the certificate of loan and the notarial deed of monetary loan for consumption, the Plaintiff and C submitted a list of property in the case of property specification applied by the Defendant as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2010Kao551, and the Plaintiff paid interest after 2010, it is insufficient to recognize that the said KRW 50 million was remitted to the repayment of the instant loan claim, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that the responsibility for the instant loan was exempted, as the Seoul Central District Court 2014Da10765 decided March 24, 2015 was exempted from immunity.

However, according to the above paragraph (2), the Plaintiff knew of the existence of the instant loan claim at the time of the application for discharge (the Plaintiff did not enter the instant loan claim in the creditor list) and thus, the instant loan claim constitutes non-exempt claim under Article 566 (7) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.

4. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that all of the plaintiff's claim is without merit.