1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant A is subject to KRW 605,502, and KRW 403,668, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 10, 2001, the Ulsan Credit Union loaned 3,000,000 won interest rate of 13.5% per annum (22.5% per annum per annum), the due date of repayment on April 10, 2003 (hereinafter “instant loan”), and D died on October 1, 2002.

B. On October 18, 2005, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, a trustee in bankruptcy of the Ulsan Credit Cooperatives, filed a lawsuit against Defendant A, Defendant B, and C, the wife, as the heir of the network D, seeking the payment of the instant loan claim under the Ulsan District Court 2005 Ghana135174, which was the U.S. court. On January 26, 2006, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending settlement (hereinafter referred to as the “decision of recommending settlement of this case”). The above ruling was served on the Defendants on February 1, 2006 and became final and conclusive on February 1, 2006.

C. The Plaintiff, a trustee in bankruptcy of the Ulsan Credit Cooperatives, acquired the claim based on the decision of recommending the above reconciliation from the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, and was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of the claim from the said Corporation and notified the Defendants of the assignment of the claim.

The Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 1,44,352 of the instant loan claims and appropriated them for principal obligations, and Defendant A’s debt (based on principal) remaining at present is KRW 605,502, Defendant B and C are KRW 403,668, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on Defendant A’s main defense

A. Defendant A’s assertion of the parties became final and conclusive a decision to grant immunity to Defendant A, and the instant lawsuit asserted to the effect that there is no interest in the lawsuit as a performance suit against the exempted claim, and thus, it is unlawful. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted the instant loan claim against Defendant A in bad faith in the creditor list.