1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against Defendant B is dismissed.

2. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall be the Plaintiff 50,889.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 11, 2013, the New Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Savings Bank”) established and lent KRW 35,000,000 per annum to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) at the interest rate of KRW 15,00,000 per annum, interest rate of KRW 27% per annum, interest rate for delay, and period for repayment as of September 11, 2013.

(B) The Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of the instant loan amounting to KRW 45,500,000 with the guarantee limit amount of KRW 45,500,000, and the due date was changed to December 11, 2013).

B. The New Savings Bank was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap161, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee.

C. As of June 28, 2016, the balance of the instant loan obligations is KRW 50,889,478 (= Principal KRW 30,169,197 and KRW 20,720,281).

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s main defense

A. With respect to the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the balance of the instant loan to Defendant B, Defendant B was granted bankruptcy and immunity, and thus, Defendant B asserted that the claim against Defendant B in the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. On July 1, 2014, Defendant B, following the occurrence of the instant loan obligation, was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court 2014Hadan1996, Oct. 27, 2015; Defendant B, upon receipt of the aforementioned court’s decision to grant immunity by 1996; and on November 14, 2015, the fact that the decision to grant exemption became final and conclusive does not conflict between the parties.

When a decision to permit the discharge of obligation against the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, the obligation of the bankrupt shall be natural and shall lose the ability and executory power of the suit which has ordinary claims. Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the claim against the defendant B shall be unlawful as there is no benefit

C. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B is not exempt from liability because he did not enter the obligation of the instant loan in the creditor list in bad faith.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B did not enter the obligation of the loan in the creditor list in bad faith.