1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s judgment against the Plaintiff is rendered on October 21, 2010.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 21, 2010, the Defendant filed a claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Kadan143532, and was sentenced by the above court in favor of the Defendant to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 1,618,201,296 and its delay damages (hereinafter “instant claim for reimbursement”). The above judgment was delivered to the Plaintiff on November 4, 2010, and became final and conclusive as it was on November 19, 2010.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). (b)

The Plaintiff was granted immunity on July 10, 2014 (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”) upon filing bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Suwon District Court 2013Hadan1565, 2013 and 1565.

C. However, the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff to the court in the above bankruptcy and immunity procedure did not state the claim of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2-1 and Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “The debtor shall be deemed a bankruptcy claim for any property claim arising before a declaration of bankruptcy is made against the debtor,” and Article 566 of the same Act provides that “The debtor granted immunity shall be exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That the following claims shall not be exempted from liability.” Thus, even if a bankruptcy claim is not entered in the creditors list of the claims for immunity, unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010), the effect of immunity shall be exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da353, May 13, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the claim for indemnity of this case shall be deemed a bankruptcy claim of the plaintiff