1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The defendant's argument in the trial of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for supplementing the judgment of the court of first instance according to the following determination: thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument in the trial

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that, in the case of bankruptcy immunity, the claim cannot be a ground for objection since the debt itself is eliminated.

However, a debtor for whom a decision to grant immunity has become final and conclusive under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is exempted from the obligation to repay the debt (see the main sentence of Article 566 of the above Act) and thus, it can be excluded from the executive force of executive titles with respect to the debt exempted by a lawsuit raising an objection. Therefore, the defendant'

B. The defendant asserts that the debt of this case is the damage liability caused by the tort committed intentionally, since the plaintiff acquired 250 million won from the defendant with the advance payment of household appliances, and the defendant was punished as aiding and abetting the plaintiff's fraud, and the defendant paid the damage compensation to H.

However, there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff acquired the gift from the household appliances against the Defendant, even if the Defendant paid damages to H, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff was liable for damages due to a tort committed intentionally by the Plaintiff, and the debt of this case seems to have been recognized in accordance with the agreement of this case. In light of the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone, it is difficult to recognize that the debt of this case was liable for damages due to a tort committed intentionally, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the