1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit against the defendant shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. In the process of the transfer lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (1) the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant and the co-defendant C of the first instance trial (Seoul District Court 2001Da337809).

As the cause of the claim, the defendant and C asserted a claim for payment of KRW 20 million among the promissory notes issued jointly by the defendant and C on May 27, 1996, the par value of KRW 30 million, and the due date on December 30, 1998.

(2) On August 13, 2003, the Plaintiff received a ruling that “The Defendant and C jointly with the Plaintiff, and C, from November 13, 2002, shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million at the rate of 6% per annum from January 30, 2002 to May 31, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the judgment before the instant lawsuit,” and the money cited in this ruling, “the amount of the instant judgment”).

(3) The judgment prior to the instant lawsuit became final and conclusive around that time.

B. Around April 2008, the Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption (this Court Decision 2008Haak 11187, 2008Haak 11187, 2008, 1187), and the same year.

7. 30. Decision to exempt the Defendant (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”) was rendered.

The decision to grant immunity of this case is the same year.

8. 14. Finality was established.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit against the defendant is lawful

A. As seen earlier prior to the existence of the benefit of protecting the rights of the Defendant’s lawsuit against the Defendant, the Defendant was granted the decision of immunity of the instant case after the judgment of the previous suit was rendered.

Unless a non-exempt claim under the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), the claim of this case under the main text of Article 566 of the same Act shall lose the power and executory power of filing a lawsuit that has ordinary claims.

Thus, there is no benefit to protect the rights of the defendant in the lawsuit filed against the defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the claim of this case.

(b) is non-exempt claims;