1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.

2. Defendants B, D, and E are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for damages and losses incurred by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is demanding the performance of the joint and several liability obligation on the ground that Defendant C provided joint and several liability for Defendant C’s loan obligations. Accordingly, Defendant C was declared bankrupt and exempted from immunity under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and the Plaintiff’s filing of lawsuit is unlawful. The instant safety objection is to the effect that the Plaintiff’s filing of lawsuit is unlawful.

In other words, a claim on property arising from a cause before a bankruptcy is declared against a debtor, that is, a bankruptcy claim becomes final and conclusive pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and the right to file a lawsuit and the executive force of an ordinary claim shall be extinguished in principle and become natural obligation. The defendant C, upon being declared bankrupt by the Gwangju District Court 2008do4849 and 2008Hadan4842, and upon being granted a decision to grant immunity on May 31, 2010, the above decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive. As such, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy and thus, loses the right to file a lawsuit and executive force of the ordinary claim upon the confirmation of a decision to grant immunity against the above defendant.

As such, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is unlawful because there is no benefit of protection of rights.

(B) On July 4, 2005, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 of the judgment on the claim against Defendant B, D, and E, the Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant C did not exempt the Plaintiff from its liability, but it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C knew of the existence of the obligation against the Plaintiff prior to the decision to grant immunity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. According to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 1 of the judgment on the claim against Defendant B, D, and E, the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to KRW 33 million against the Defendant B on December 20, 2005, and interest January 1, 200.