1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B borrowed 6.6 million won from a foreign exchange credit card company on May 28, 2002 (hereinafter “instant loan”), and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligations.

B. The instant loan claim was transferred to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2003 through a mutual savings bank, a mutual savings bank promoting around June 15, 201, a Koro New Loan Co., Ltd. and a mentmenon loan around September 7, 2012, around November 12, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on January 20, 2006, the decision to grant immunity was made against the Defendant (the Busan District Court 2005.752) and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on February 9, 2006. The creditor included in the decision to grant immunity was a bank, the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation, the Elm Card, the Am-backed Limited Liability Company (T) and the Korea Asset Management Corporation.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The sale shall be considered ex officio;

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the decision to grant immunity to the defendant became final and conclusive, and even if so, the plaintiff has a claim against the defendant.

Even if it is possible to enforce the performance to the defendant through civil procedure, it is impossible to enforce it.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “the Defendant did not enter the obligee (the assignee at the time of immunity) of the instant loan in the creditor list in bad faith.”

However, considering the fact that the Defendant’s creditors recorded in the list of creditors in the process of immunity reach six persons and that the same financial institution as the promoting mutual savings bank is up to five persons, and that there is no special reason that the Defendant partially omitted only the promoting mutual savings bank, and that the Defendant’s obligation is not the Defendant’s direct loan obligation but the Defendant’s guaranteed obligation, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not enter the promoting mutual savings bank in bad faith.

3. If so, the instant lawsuit is instituted.