1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 54 million to the Defendant.

On November 30, 2007, the defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing that he would repay 54 million won by January 30, 2008 and delivered it to the plaintiff.

In addition to the above loan claim, the Plaintiff does not have any other claim against the Defendant.

B. On March 31, 2015, the Defendant was declared bankrupt on the same day by filing an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Seoul Central District Court, and was decided to discontinue the bankruptcy on June 15, 2015 (2015Hadan100134), and was decided to grant exemption on October 20, 2015 (2015Hae 2015Hae 28555), and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant decision on immunity”). At 14 times in the creditor list of the instant case, the claim is indicated as “D” to the creditor, “loan amount” to the content of the claim, and “The reported principal amount to KRW 50,00,000,” and the above “D” is merely a simple clerical error in the Plaintiff’s name, and the Plaintiff was guaranteed the procedural right as a creditor in the instant case.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of four million won, excluding five million won exempted by the decision on immunity in this case, among the loan 54 million won and the loan 54 million won.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that he/she was granted immunity in 2015, and there is no benefit in the protection of rights.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s instant loan claim against the Defendant constitutes a bankruptcy claim, which is a property claim arising from a cause arising before bankruptcy is declared, and thus, barring any circumstances provided in each subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), barring such circumstances as provided in each subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act, regardless of whether the amount of the loan’