The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined. A.

The judgment below

The reasons and records reveal the following facts.

① The Plaintiff asserted that, as Suwon District Court Decision 2003Gahap15269, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 60 million to the Defendant at the end of February 1997, and KRW 100 million at the beginning of April 1997, the Plaintiff claimed a loan of KRW 160 million and damages for delay. The Plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment on November 11, 2004, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 7, 2004.

② On November 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 160 million and delay damages against the Defendant, as a subsequent suit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the foregoing loan claim.

B. The first instance court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant did not submit a written reply even after having received a duplicate of the complaint, stating in the description of the claim the same as the “request for the interruption of prescription of the claim established by the judgment on the loan refund case No. 2003Da15269, supra.”

At the lower court, the Defendant asserted that immunity was granted to the instant judgment claim as the immunity decision became final and conclusive in the bankruptcy procedure.

As to this, the plaintiff re-appealed to the purport that the defendant's claim of this case was not entered in the creditor list in bad faith despite the defendant's knowledge of the existence of the claim of this case.

As in the first instance court, the lower court, without specifying the content of the claim as to the requisite facts as to the cause of claim, recognized that “the Plaintiff filed a loan lawsuit against the Defendant in Suwon District Court Decision 2003Gahap15269, which became final and conclusive after being sentenced to the judgment that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 160,000,000 and damages for delay thereof, and the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the extension of the extinctive prescription period of the above judgment claim,” and accordingly, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 160,000 and damages for delay.