1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff leased a building store owned by the Defendant from the Defendant at KRW 1 year of lease and KRW 40 million of lease deposit.

However, on October 14, 2005, a compulsory auction for the above building commenced, and sold on June 19, 2006, and the Plaintiff failed to refund a lease deposit from the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant claim”). B. The Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “instant claim”).

On the other hand, the defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Daegu District Court 2008Hadan6957 and 2008 Ma6957 and received immunity on December 9, 2009. The above decision became final and conclusive on December 24, 2009.

The list of creditors prepared and submitted by the defendant while making bankruptcy and application for immunity was not stated in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff sought payment against the Defendant, and the Defendant received the exemption decision.

B. (1) Determination (1) Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that “A debtor shall be liable for bankruptcy claims” and Article 566 of the same Act provides that “A debtor who has received immunity shall be exempted from all obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends pursuant to bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That the following claims shall not be exempted from liability.” Thus, even if a bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). Also, the effect of immunity shall be exempted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). In this context, the term “a debtor”