1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit are the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

1. The summary of the party's assertion asserts that the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff acquired the claim for loans of KRW 20,000,000 against the plaintiff's defendant, and that the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff, and even if the plaintiff's loan to the defendant was recognized, the defendant was granted immunity on October 5, 2007 in the Seoul Central District Court's exemption case No. 20075, Oct. 5, 2007, and thus, the defendant cannot comply with the plaintiff's successor's claim.

2. Judgment on the lawfulness of the lawsuit

A. In other words, a property claim arising from a cause that occurred before the debtor is declared bankrupt, namely, a bankruptcy claim becomes final and conclusive pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), and in principle, the right to file a lawsuit and the executory power of the debtor who ordinarily becomes a natural obligation shall be extinguished.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2-1 and evidence 2-2, the defendant applied for bankruptcy and exemption as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Hadan18060, 2007Ma18075 and applied for exemption from immunity on October 5, 2007 (hereinafter "the decision of exemption from immunity of this case"), and the fact that the above decision became final and conclusive, and the loan claim of this case that the plaintiff succeeded to by the plaintiff succeeded to the claim of this case was acquired on May 12, 2001 is recognized as the date the decision of exemption of this case became final and conclusive, and thus, the loan claim of this case lost the ability and executive force of an ordinary claim as the decision of exemption of this case became final and conclusive. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

B. The Plaintiff’s successor asserts that the instant claim constitutes non-exempt claim under Article 566 proviso 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, since the Defendant knew the existence of the instant loan claim at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy or exemption from liability and omitted the entry in the list of creditors.

Debtor Rehabilitation Act.