1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

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

3...

1. According to the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on February 23, 2010 by setting the interest rate of 9% per annum and the period of August 23, 2010. The defendant jointly guaranteed the non-party company’s obligation to borrow the above loan to the plaintiff. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 100 million and interest and delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case has no interest in protecting the rights since he was declared bankrupt and exempted from the above loan obligation against the plaintiff.

B. Upon a final and conclusive decision to grant immunity to the public health-based bankrupt, namely, a claim on property arising from a cause before the debtor is declared bankrupt, namely, a bankruptcy claim is extinguished in principle in accordance with the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”), and the right to file a lawsuit and the power of executory power, which ordinarily holds claims due to natural debt, are lost.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant applied for bankruptcy and exemption in this court on September 17, 2014 and confirmed the above decision upon immunity on January 30, 2015, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in the list of creditors in the above case. The above facts of recognition reveal that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is obviously caused before the declaration of bankruptcy, and thus, the defendant lost the ability to file a lawsuit and executive force that has ordinary claims upon the confirmation of immunity with the defendant.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is illegal because there is no benefit in protecting the rights, the defendant's defense is justified.

C. As to this, the Plaintiff: