1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The first instance court was made on December 15, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2008, from around August 2009 to around August 2009, the Plaintiff borrowed a total of KRW 32 million from the Defendant on several occasions, and issued and delivered a loan certificate to the Defendant on August 24, 2009 that “a loan of KRW 32 million was borrowed”.

B. From August 31, 2009 to July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant totaling KRW 19,400,000 to KRW 50,000 on several occasions.

C. On February 4, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for loans with the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2015Ga3122. On February 27, 2015, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 12,600,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.” The Defendant did not object to the said decision on performance recommendation, and thus, “the said decision on performance recommendation” (hereinafter referred to as the “decision on performance recommendation”) on March 18, 2015.

(D) A final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive. On the other hand, on January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff declared bankrupt and filed an application for immunity with the District Court No. 2014Hadan89, 2014Ma89, and on December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by the above court on December 29, 2014, and upon receipt of immunity from the above court on October 29, 2015, the decision of immunity became final and conclusive on November 13, 2015. The list of creditors include eight financial institutions or companies, including E, but are not written in the list of creditors, but the Defendant is not written as a creditor. [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, significant fact, Gap, 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 1 through 4 (if a number is available, the purport of each entry, each of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff is a bankruptcy claim arising from the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff before bankruptcy is declared, and the Plaintiff is granted immunity by the District Court 2014Ra89. Thus, the effect of such immunity extends to the Defendant’s above-mentioned claims, and this case’s decision on the above claims is rendered.