1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff was a law firm on May 23, 201, No. 50 of 2011.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition 1) Nonparty C borrowed KRW 85 million from the Defendant on May 23, 201, with interest rate of KRW 2% and maturity of repayment on May 10, 2012. On the same day, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed C’s above loan obligation to the Defendant on the same day. If the Plaintiff and C delayed the payment of the said monetary obligation under No. 50 of 2011 with a deed issued by a notary public on the same day, it is deemed a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement to the effect that no objection is raised even if they are immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”).

2) The Defendant, based on the instant notarial deed, filed an application for the issuance of a seizure and collection order under the court No. 2016TT No. 10181 against the Plaintiff’s one bank, the Nonghyup Bank, the New Bank, the National Bank, and the Korean Bank as to each of the deposit claims (the amount claimed is KRW 85 million) against the Plaintiff’s Han Bank, the Nonghyup Bank, the Han Bank, the New Bank, the Korean National Bank, and the Korean Bank, and the court rendered a decision to accept it on November 2, 2016.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Hadan12802, and was granted immunity on November 14, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da12802 on November 14, 2013 (the Defendant’s joint and several surety claim against the Plaintiff is included in the list of creditors.

(A) The decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on December 3, 2013. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. Determination 1) A claim on the property against a debtor arising from a cause that occurred before the debtor is declared bankrupt is a bankruptcy claim (Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act), and a debtor who has been exempted from liability, except dividends under the bankruptcy procedure, appears to have been exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditor (the main sentence of Article 566 of the same Act). In light of the above provisions of the above Act, the defendant's joint and several surety claims against the plaintiff are still in existence, but can compel the plaintiff who is the bankrupt debtor to perform the obligations.