The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C is dismissed.

Defendant B-.

1. The court's decision on the facts of recognition and the defense of this part of this Court's decision is consistent with the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit against the defendant C is lawful

A. The main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that the obligor who has obtained immunity is exempted from all liability for the whole amount of obligations owed to the bankruptcy creditors, except distribution under the 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 debtor in bankruptcy becomes final and conclusive, a claim that has been granted immunity shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). (b)

Judgment

1) Defendant C filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption from liability with Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2017Hadan1553, 2017KaMa1553, May 15, 2017; the Seoul Rehabilitation Court rendered a decision to exempt Defendant C from liability on October 17, 2017; and the fact that the aforementioned decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on November 1, 2017 can be recognized by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the written evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6. 2) In light of the legal principles seen earlier, in light of the foregoing, the claim on the loan certificate No. 1 in the instant case sought by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim claim”) constituted a bankruptcy claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy; and barring any special circumstance, barring any other special circumstance, Defendant C’s ordinary obligation to grant immunity was lost.

3. As to this, the Plaintiff did not enter the claim of this case in the list of creditors in bad faith during the above bankruptcy and exemption procedure. Accordingly, Article 566 Subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.