1. The plaintiff's subrogated payment of KRW 16,735,452 and its late payment damages against the defendant were exempted from liability.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the defendant acquired the right to indemnity against the plaintiff (hereinafter "right to indemnity of this case") on April 16, 2010, since it is acknowledged that the defendant subrogated for 16,735,452 won of the plaintiff's obligation pursuant to a credit guarantee agreement with the plaintiff.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, it is recognized that the plaintiff was declared bankrupt on February 25, 201 by Daejeon District Court 2009Hadan5498, Daejeon District Court on July 26, 201, and the immunity was granted by Daejeon District Court 2009Ma5500 on July 26, 201, and the list of creditors submitted at the time of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity, the right to indemnity of this case was not stated.

On the other hand, the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that a bankruptcy claim against a debtor arising from any cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy shall be a bankruptcy claim (Article 423), and that a debtor who has been exempted is exempted from all liability for all obligations against a bankruptcy creditor except distribution under the bankruptcy procedure (Article 566). Even if bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors in the application for immunity, unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the above Act, the effect of immunity is exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). Thus, the effect of immunity is effective for the right to indemnity arising from any cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, and the defendant is dissatisfied with this, therefore there is a benefit in confirmation.

Although the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had omitted the right to indemnity of this case with knowledge of the existence of the right to indemnity of this case, it is difficult to recognize it only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and no other evidence exists

The plaintiff's claim is accepted.