1. The plaintiff's respective lawsuits against the defendant A and B shall be dismissed in entirety.

2. Defendant C’s KRW 106,000,000 and KRW 33.0 among the Plaintiff.

1. Claim against Defendant C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claims against the defendant A and B

A. The plaintiff asserted that on April 3, 2008, in Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Gadan3675, the plaintiff asserted that "the defendant A, B, and C shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 33,000,000 won and 30% interest per annum from January 22, 2004 to the date of full payment." Since the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 14, 2008, the defendant A and B shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount.

In this regard, the defendants asserted that the Changwon District Court does not have any obligation to pay the above amount to the plaintiff, since they received bankruptcy or exemption decision.

B. We examine the judgment, and the fact that Defendant A obtained exemption from liability on September 23, 2016 by the Changwon District Court 2016, 788, and the fact that Defendant B received exemption from liability under the same court 2016,789 on the same day is not a dispute between the parties.

According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a debtor who has been exempted is exempted from the responsibility for all obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to bankruptcy procedures. Thus, in principle, a property claim arising before the debtor is declared bankrupt, i.e., a bankruptcy claim is extinguished as a matter of principle and the right to file a lawsuit and the executive force of an ordinary claim is lost, when a decision to discharge the debtor becomes final and conclusive.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A and B became final and conclusive and conclusive a decision to grant such immunity, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff was unable to bring an action against the said Defendants, and thus, each lawsuit against Defendant A and B is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

As to this, the Plaintiff had property.