1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's successor's lawsuit against the defendant.

1. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor seeking the payment of the above loans against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s debt owed to Co-Defendant D Co-Defendant D Co-Defendant D on December 20, 1996, and that the above loan claims were assigned in succession to F limited liability companies, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor.

On this issue, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit against the defendant by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is unlawful, since he/she has been declared bankrupt and has been granted immunity.

According to Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the debtor's property right that has arisen before the bankruptcy is declared against the debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim, and according to the main sentence of Article 566 of the same Act, the debtor who has been exempted is exempted from the liability for all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends arising from bankruptcy procedures.

The exemption here means that the obligation itself continues to exist, but it is not possible to enforce the performance to the bankrupt debtor.

Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, a claim that has been granted immunity shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit that has ordinary claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence B Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017Hadan6027, Feb. 27, 2017, 2017, the Defendant was declared bankrupt in the above court, and was released from immunity on December 12, 2017, and the fact that the said decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on December 28, 2017.

As a result, the Defendant’s liability was exempted for the Defendant’s loan obligation against the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. Since the Intervenor’s claim for the loan against the Defendant was lost the ability to file a lawsuit, the lawsuit against the Defendant by the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff is unlawful.

2. The conclusion is that the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is the defendant.