1. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 188,591,126 and KRW 125,265,347 among them.

1. As to the claim against the defendant A

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. As to the claim against the defendant B (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as the "defendant")

A. (1) The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligations (hereinafter “instant loan”) No. 6 out of the loan obligations to the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) to the Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) as indicated in the attached Form. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

B. On June 27, 2013, the Luxembourg Bank transferred the instant loan claims against the Defendants to the third asset-backed limited company in Korea. On June 17, 2016, the said limited liability company transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant Company of the fact of the assignment of claims by way of sending content-certified mail.

•Defendant Company did not pay the loans of this case within the prescribed time limit.

Around April 20, 2015, the defendant filed bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Daejeon District Court (2015Hadan349), and the decision to grant immunity (2015do347) was made on June 9, 2015, and the above decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on June 24, 2015.

(v)the instant loans are not indicated in the creditors list prepared and submitted by the Defendant in the course of bankruptcy and application for immunity.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As to the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits, the Defendant’s liability for the instant claim was exempted due to the confirmation of bankruptcy and immunity against the Defendant, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

⑵ 피고의 항변에 대한 판단 ㈎ 파산채권은 그것이 면책신청의 채권자목록에 기재되지 않았다고 하더라도 면책의 효력으로 그 책임이 면제된다 (대법원 2010. 5. 13. 선고 2010다3353 판결 등 참조). ㈏...