1. The lawsuit against the defendant B by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated party shall be dismissed;

2. Defendants C, D, E, and F shall each.

In this case, the plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") jointly and severally assumed with the defendants for the determination of the main defense against the defendant B's main defense against the defendant, jointly and severally liable for the payment of the judgment amount to the non-party J and K, and the claim for the reimbursement of the compensation amount, the defendant B's defense against the above defendant has become final and conclusive.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the decision to grant immunity was finalized on June 20, 2013 by Defendant B upon receipt of the decision to grant immunity in the case No. 2012Hadan12787, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 2013, Jun. 3, 2013.

Thus, since the above debt against the plaintiffs of defendant B was exempted from the responsibility by decision of immunity and was natural debt, the plaintiffs' lawsuit against the defendant B is unlawful as it seeks performance against natural debt.

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the above claim for indemnity amount constitutes "claim not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith" under Article 556 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, since they knew of the existence of the above claim for indemnity amount but omitted entry of the above claim in the list of creditors at the time of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity.

Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to a case where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor prior to immunity, and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if an obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute a non-exempt claim under the above legal provision. However, if the obligor was aware of the existence of an obligation, the obligor did not enter it in the list of creditors by negligence.