1. The part against the defendant C in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

2...

1. According to the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the defendants lent KRW 3,00,000 from the plaintiff on October 5, 2004, and the fact that the defendants additionally lent KRW 500,000 to the plaintiff for the hospital expenses for the parents hospitalized by the defendants for a long time is not in dispute between the parties.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 3,500,000 and damages for delay.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 7,00,000 per annum for the ten-year period of 10 years for the above loan, but it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on interest rate of KRW 20,000 per annum for the above loan by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Although the Defendants asserted that they repaid all the above loans to the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Defendants’ assertion of repayment cannot be accepted.

B. First of all, according to the purport of the entire pleadings against Defendant C, it is recognized that the decision of exemption from bankruptcy against Defendant C (this Court Order 2007Hadan552, 2007Ma552, 5577) became final and conclusive on October 23, 2007. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is a claim arising before the above bankruptcy is declared, and it is not proved that Defendant C omitted the Plaintiff’s claim in bad faith in the above bankruptcy and exemption procedure. Thus, the Defendant’s liability for the above claim was exempted by the said decision of exemption from immunity.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.

Next, Defendant B was the one who did not enter the Plaintiff’s claims in the list of creditors in the individual rehabilitation procedure, and as such, the above loan claims.