1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

As to the plaintiff's assertion that the Seoul Central District Court filed a claim for reimbursement against the defendant in order to receive the money stated in the claim, and sentenced on December 14, 2006 to the Seoul Central District Court, and sentenced the judgment again after the extinctive prescription has expired, the defendant was declared bankrupt and exempted from immunity.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1-2, the defendant has received a decision that "the debtor shall be exempted from liability" on July 6, 2007 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da6247 and in the case of adjudication of bankruptcy 2007Hadan6242, and the above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

The claim on the property that occurred before the debtor is declared bankrupt constitutes a bankruptcy claim (Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and the debtor who has the immunity is exempted from the liability for the whole of the obligations to the bankruptcy creditor except for the distribution pursuant to the bankruptcy procedure (Article 566 of the same Act). Here, the term "Immunity" means that even though the debtor continues to exist, it is impossible to compel the debtor to perform his/her obligations

Therefore, once a decision to grant immunity to a debtor in bankruptcy becomes final and conclusive, the claim exempted shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit that has ordinary claims (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because it has no benefit of protection of rights, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the Supreme Court.