1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 26,252,666.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 8, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, a joint guarantor, E and its joint guarantor, in order to recover the goods prices, etc. for E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and rendered a judgment to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 26,252,666 to the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “the judgment of the previous suit of this case”).

B. The judgment of the previous suit of this case became final and conclusive on October 19, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant C: A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, Defendant D: A by service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to Defendant C’s main defense of safety

A. In the instant case where Defendant C’s assertion that the Plaintiff sought the payment of the said judgment amount in order to extend the extinctive prescription of the judgment amount in the instant lawsuit (hereinafter “instant judgment amount”), Defendant C was granted immunity, and thus, Defendant C cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim, and thus, we examine this as the main safety objection.

B. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “The exempted debtor shall be exempted from the responsibility for the whole of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditors, except for the distribution under the bankruptcy procedure.”

Here, “Immunity” means that, although the obligation itself continues to exist, it is not possible to enforce the performance of the bankrupt debtor.

Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, a claim entitled to immunity shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Meanwhile, Articles 566 proviso and 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provide that “the debtor shall not be exempt from liability with respect to a claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith.”