1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff

The assignee is against the defendant of the assignee.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the co-defendant B of the first instance trial: (a) borrowed 28.5% per annum from the plaintiff on April 1, 2003 and 5 million won per annum from the plaintiff on April 1, 2003; (b) as of March 25, 2004, it was impossible to fully repay these amounts; (c) as of March 25, 2004, the principal amount of KRW 2,346,385 and the attempted principal amount of KRW 787,491 as of March 25, 204; and (d) the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligations to the plaintiff on the same day; and (d) the fact that the plaintiff transferred the above obligations to the defendant asset management loan company, and (e) the asset management loan company to the plaintiff on the same day, respectively.

2. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is responsible for the joint and several debt of the above B, the defendant asserts that the defendant was exempted from the liability in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Hadan38635, and therefore, the defendant was also exempted from the liability of the plaintiff's acceptance intervenor.

3. According to Articles 565 and 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, when a decision to grant immunity to a debtor becomes final and conclusive, the debtor shall be exempted from all liability to the bankruptcy creditor except the distribution under the bankruptcy procedure.

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 5 of this Court, the defendant is declared bankrupt on February 10, 2009 in this Court Decision 38635, 2008, 2008, 38635, and 38635, and it can be acknowledged that the defendant's claim against the defendant by the plaintiff's acquiring intervenor against the defendant is a bankruptcy claim arising from the cause that occurred before the bankruptcy is declared. Thus, since the plaintiff's claims in this case become final and conclusive as immunity becomes final, the plaintiff's acquiring intervenor's claims in this case lose the ordinary right to file a lawsuit and executive power, the plaintiff's claim seeking payment shall benefit in the protection of rights.