1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. From February 16, 2015 to November 2, 2016, Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant on five occasions (hereinafter “instant loan”). Since the Defendant did not repay the instant loan after the maturity date, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the instant loan and the damages for delay.

B. The Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy or exemption with the Chuncheon District Court and received a decision of discharge from the above court, and thus, the Defendant’s instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff were exempted.

2. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the obligor who has obtained immunity shall be exempted from all liability to the bankruptcy creditors, except dividends pursuant to the bankruptcy procedures.

The exemption here means that the obligation itself continues to exist, but it is not possible to enforce the performance to the bankrupt debtor.

Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, the claim exempted shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit with ordinary claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). According to the overall purport of the entries and pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3, and 4, the Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Chuncheon District Court 2018HaHa263, 2018Ha263, Oct. 4, 2018, and the Defendant received the decision to grant immunity on Oct. 4, 2018. The fact that the instant loan claims against the Defendant are entered in the creditor list submitted by the Defendant to the said court, and that the said decision to grant immunity becomes final and conclusive on Oct. 19, 2018.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case was unlawful because there was no benefit of protection of rights in accordance with the determination of exemption exemption.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.