1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s decision on February 13, 2015 against the Plaintiff is rendered by the Gwangju District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 16, 2004, the defendant lent 24,000,000 won to D, who is the husband of the plaintiff, to D on December 31, 2004, with interest rate of 60% per annum. The plaintiff guaranteed the above loan obligations against D on the same day.

B. On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Suwon District Court 2012Hadan2120 and 2012Ma2120, the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on November 6, 2012 from the above court, and was granted immunity on April 11, 2013, and the foregoing immunity became final and conclusive on April 26, 2013.

At the time of the above bankruptcy and application for immunity, the plaintiff did not enter the defendant's joint and several liability claims against the plaintiff in the list of creditors.

C. On December 19, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for reimbursement of guaranteed debt with the Gwangju District Court 2014Kadan22936, and obtained a favorable judgment from the said court on February 13, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that "any claim on the property that has arisen before the declaration of bankruptcy against a debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim," and Article 566 of the same Act provides that "the exempted debtor shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except dividends under the bankruptcy procedure: Provided, That no liability shall be exempted with respect to the following claims." Thus, even if such claims are not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, a bankruptcy claim shall be exempted from its liability with respect to the effect of 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). On the other hand, if a debtor does not assert that the debtor is not responsible in a lawsuit by seeking the performance of non-liability obligations, the issue of liability shall not appear as the object of adjudication