1. Ascertainment that the principal amount of 8,562,933 won against the Defendant and interest thereon have been discharged.

2...

On May 14, 2001, the Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff’s loan obligations to the Industrial Bank of Korea within the scope of KRW 17 million guaranteed by the Defendant, which was around May 14, 2001.

Around May 14, 2004 pursuant to the above guarantee agreement, the Defendant subrogated for the above loan, and as of November 13, 2015, the Defendant has the Plaintiff’s principal amounting to KRW 8,562,933 and interest thereon, etc. (hereinafter “the instant claim”) as of November 13, 2015.

On May 10, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2007Hadan21262, 2007Ma21280, and was granted immunity on January 23, 2008, and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] The claim in this case constitutes a bankruptcy claim with a claim for property arising from a cause prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, the entry of Gap 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

Unless there are special circumstances, the obligor who has been exempted from the liability is exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures. Therefore, the obligation in this case was exempted from the liability.

As long as the defendant contests this issue, the plaintiff as the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

The defendant asserts that the defendant's defense was not exempted since the plaintiff knew of the existence of the claim in this case at the time of the application for bankruptcy and immunity and did not enter it in the list of creditors.

There is no dispute between the parties that the claim of this case was not entered in the list of creditors submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the application for bankruptcy and exemption.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had not entered in the list of creditors despite being aware of the existence of the claim in this case.

Rather, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not exercise the claim of this case against the Plaintiff in the past, and the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Industrial Bank of Korea was stated in the creditor list.