1. The Plaintiff’s guarantee obligation against the Defendant amounting to KRW 32,00,000 and interest thereon, etc. have been discharged.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 수원지방법원 2009하단12135, 2009하면12135호로 파산 및 면책신청을 하여 위 법원으로부터 2010. 8. 12. 면책 결정을 맏았고, 위 결정은 같은 달 28일 확정되었다.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Kadan6852, which claimed a deposit of KRW 32,000,000, and damages for delay thereof. The above court rendered a judgment for claimant by public notice on January 9, 2008, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s above obligation against the Defendant was discharged pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, barring any special circumstance.

As long as the defendant contests this, the benefits of confirmation shall be recognized.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the exemption does not have effect on the defendant's obligation, since the plaintiff knew that there was an obligation against the defendant at the time of the application for exemption, and did not enter it in bad faith in the list of creditors.

However, the fact that the plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption and did not enter the obligation against the defendant in the list of creditors is not disputed between the parties or recognized by the statement of evidence A No. 4.

However, the above Daejeon District Court 2007Kadan68852 case was proceeding by public notice to the plaintiff, and the defendant's claim was made by lending money to the debtor Eul on December 9, 199 and the plaintiff guaranteed the defendant's obligation and was about 10 years have passed since the plaintiff applied for bankruptcy and exemption. In light of all the evidence submitted by the defendant, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff did not enter the defendant's obligation to the creditor's list in bad faith, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's status.