1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that has entered into an automobile insurance contract with D owner of C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. The Defendant is the owner of the vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and the co-defendant B of the first instance trial is the driver of the Defendant vehicle.

B around 23:50 on June 2, 2009, while driving a Defendant vehicle on the G cafeteria in front of the G cafeteria in Ansan-si F, and causing a drilling accident by negligence, thereby causing injury to D who was on board the Plaintiff vehicle.

C. On June 24, 2009, the Plaintiff paid 779,250 won of the final agreement to D, and 846,800 won of the victim’s hospital treatment costs to H prison and H prison on June 25, 2009.

On the other hand, on April 27, 2011, the Defendant filed the application for immunity with the Daegu District Court 2010 Da3701, 201Hadan3701, and was granted immunity from the above court. The decision became final and conclusive on May 12, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts with the court of the party concerned, Gap evidence No. 1 to 4, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "any property claim that has arisen before the declaration of bankruptcy against the debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim," and the main text of Article 566 of the same Act provides that "the exempted debtor shall be exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends arising from the bankruptcy procedures, except for dividends arising from the bankruptcy procedures." Thus, in cases where immunity decision on the debtor becomes final and conclusive, the bankruptcy claim shall lose the competence and executive power of the lawsuit in which the debtor becomes a natural obligation and has ordinary claims.

On the other hand, the defendant was granted immunity and the claim for reimbursement claimed by the plaintiff was created before immunity is granted. Therefore, the plaintiff lost the ability to file a lawsuit against the defendant based on the above claim for reimbursement, and therefore the lawsuit against the defendant is not recognized as benefit of protection of rights.