1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s loan case No. 2017Gau22045 against the Plaintiff is the Jeonju District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 11, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for loans with the Jeonju District Court Decision 2017Da22045, and the said court served the Plaintiff with a notice of a copy of the complaint and the date for pleading by means of service, if the duplicate of the complaint is not served, and served with the Plaintiff on August 11, 2017, and concluded the pleadings on August 201, 2017, the argument was concluded that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 11,530,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 16, 2017 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”; and the said judgment was also served on the Plaintiff by means of service by public notice and became final and conclusive on August 31, 2017.

B. On August 21, 2013, the Plaintiff’s decision to grant immunity was finalized on September 11, 2013 upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity from the Jeonju District Court 2012/189.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on immunity”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, the court’s significant fact, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Whether the rehabilitation claim constitutes a immunity claim (1) Any rehabilitation claim under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

(2) Article 138(2) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act includes future claims stipulated under Article 138(2). In cases where a joint and several surety of the debtor acquires a claim for reimbursement by performing the joint and several surety obligation with repayment, etc. to the principal creditor after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, if a joint and several surety contract was concluded before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the debtor, the relationship between joint and several surety and the principal cause of the occurrence of the right to indemnity, is preserved before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures. Thus, the right to indemnity based on a joint and several surety contract, etc. is deemed a future claim and a rehabilitation claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da109388, Apr. 23, 2015).