The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the parties to the instant monetary loan agreement, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant borrowed KRW 68 million from the Plaintiff jointly with the co-defendant C, who is the husband of the lower court, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

2. As to whether there was an incomplete hearing as to whether there was a claim for exemption, the existence of a requirement for protection of rights in civil procedure can not be considered unless there is a party’s assertion as to the matters to be examined ex officio by the court or the specific facts that form the basis for the existence of the requirement, because it is different from the so-called ex officio detection, and as to the facts in dispute, the court shall not consider it, unless there is a party’

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Da124 Decided June 23, 1981, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da13577 Decided July 9, 2015, etc.). According to the records, following the loan of this case, the Defendant may be found to have been declared bankrupt and exempted from immunity. However, the Defendant did not assert that the Defendant was granted immunity in bankruptcy proceedings until the closing of argument at the time of the lower court’s closing of argument, and even based on the data submitted by the court of final appeal, the list of creditors submitted by the Defendant in bankruptcy and exemption proceedings does not contain the Plaintiff’s claim. In light of the past trial, there is room for dispute as to whether the Plaintiff’s claim is a immunity claim.

In light of the above circumstances and the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court erred by failing to ex officio examine whether the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes a discharge claim, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations regarding the interest of the lawsuit.