1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant A, B, and D are jointly and severally liable.

1. In determining the legality of a lawsuit against Defendant C, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 234,884,547 of the indemnity amount claim against Defendant C, a joint and several surety of Defendant A, as of September 4, 2014 (=223,565,080 of the subrogated amount, KRW 2,621 of the subrogated amount, KRW 1,316,846), and damages for delay. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is examined as to the legality of the lawsuit against Defendant C.

The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the obligor who has been exempted from the liability shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors, except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures.

The exemption here means that the obligation itself continues to exist, but it is not possible to enforce the performance to the bankrupt debtor.

Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, the effect of immunity becomes void (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Moreover, even if a bankruptcy claim is not entered in the creditors list of the applications for immunity, unless it falls under any of the proviso of Article 566 of the aforementioned Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). Reviewing the instant case and examining, and examining the overall purport of oral arguments, the Defendant C filed bankruptcy and application to grant immunity on March 23, 2015 with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Hau2547, 2015Da254777, Jun. 10, 2015). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the aforementioned court rendered a decision to grant immunity to Defendant C’s bankruptcy claim on June 18, 2015.

2. Defendant A, B, D.