1. All of the counterclaims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are the principal lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff holds against the Defendant a claim for reimbursement, such as the purport of the claim as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “claim for reimbursement of this case”).

B. On April 2, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for individual bankruptcy with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court for exemption from liability with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2014Hadan3402, Sept. 26, 2014, and filed an application for bankruptcy on September 26, 2014, and thus, deemed insufficient to meet the expenses for the bankruptcy proceedings, and thus the discontinuation of bankruptcy was decided, and the Defendant received the exemption from liability on October 1, 2014 (hereinafter “instant exemption from liability”), and the list of creditors of the above bankruptcy and exemption cases are not indicated in the list of creditors.

[Evidence Evidence] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 8, Eul 1's each entry (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The main point of the instant safety defense asserts that the Defendant was exempted from the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of this case, and thus, the Defendant was also exempted from the instant claim for reimbursement of this case.

B. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that “A debtor shall be entitled to any property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy as a bankruptcy claim.” Article 566 of the same Act provides that “A debtor so exempted shall be exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except for dividends arising from the bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That any of the following claims shall not be exempted from any liability: Provided, That even if a bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010).” Moreover, the term “Immunity” in this context shall continue to exist independently, but shall not be forced to perform its obligations to the bankruptcy debtor: