beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant B is dismissed.
2. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000, and this shall apply.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff loaned KRW 20,000 to the defendant Eul around June 28, 200, and the defendant Eul paid the plaintiff KRW 20,000 to the plaintiff up to June 30, 2005.
“The terms and conditions of this Agreement were written and accepted by Defendant C, respectively, and there is no counter-proof.
2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit against Defendant B
A. As to the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the said KRW 20 million and damages for delay thereof (hereinafter “instant claim”), Defendant B asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant B is unlawful, since he/she was granted immunity from the court.
B. (1) Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether immunity is granted or not, Defendant B filed an application for immunity as the Incheon District Court No. 2014 and 2861 around June 11, 2014, and the decision became final and conclusive on June 24, 2015 upon receipt of a immunity decision from the same court around June 9, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B was established on June 2, 2005, prior to the above exemption decision, and there is no counter-proof.
(2) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B in this case is a bankruptcy claim, and its liability is exempted by the above immunity decision, and becomes natural obligation, and barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff lost the power and executory power of filing a lawsuit with ordinary claims.
C. The plaintiff's assertion (1) is judged in bad faith as to the plaintiff's assertion. The plaintiff, although he knew of the existence of the debt of this case against the plaintiff, failed to perform his duty in bad faith or intentionally, and caused the plaintiff to prove the existence of the debt of this case intentionally.