1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff loaned KRW 35,00,000 to the defendant C, who is the spouse of the defendant B and the defendant B, around 2005 (hereinafter "loan claim or loan debt in this case"), Defendant B filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the District Court 2010Habu District Court 2010Ha, 5066, 2010, 5061, and the above immunity was confirmed on April 30, 201 upon the above court's declaration of bankruptcy and exemption from immunity. Defendant C's District Court 201Habu District Court 201Hun-Ma521, 2016, 2016, 521 and bankruptcy, and the above immunity becomes final and conclusive on February 9, 2017 upon the above court's declaration of bankruptcy and exemption from immunity.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are exempted from liability for the debt of the loan of this case pursuant to each of the above immunity decisions, and the plaintiff's loan of this case lost the ability to file a lawsuit with ordinary claims, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes a non-exempt claim under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, notwithstanding the aforementioned immunity decision, given that the Defendants did not enter the Plaintiff’s claim in the list of creditors in bad faith in each of the aforementioned immunity cases.

The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the Defendants did not enter the claim in the creditor list in bad faith.

According to the evidence evidence No. 1, it is deemed that Defendant C, along with Defendant C on December 6, 2009, prepared a loan certificate to the Plaintiff. However, considering the fact that Defendant C’s bankruptcy and application for immunity was filed seven years after the time when Defendant C filed the application for immunity, and that there is no reason to exclude only the Plaintiff’s claims while filing the application for immunity, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize Defendant C’s bad faith.