1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against Defendant B is dismissed.

2. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: 60,019.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

C. Some dismissed parts of the Plaintiff seek payment of damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the instant complaint. However, according to the amendment of the provisions on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the statutory interest rate from October 1, 2015 is 15% per annum, and thus, the part of the claim for damages for delay

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to each of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the facts such as the statement in the annexed cause of claim are recognized.

B. Defendant B’s defense was subject to adjudication on bankruptcy and immunity, and thus, Defendant B asserted that the instant claim in question is unlawful. According to the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant B’s claim as stated in the attached Form Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant claim”).

(2) On September 26, 2013, the date of the occurrence of which was the District Court Decision No. 2012Hau4563, the adjudication of bankruptcy was rendered on September 26, 2013; on March 7, 2014, the court rendered a ruling of exemption pursuant to the above court No. 2012Hau4558; and on March 25, 2014, it can be recognized that the ruling of exemption became final and conclusive on March 25, 2014. Once the ruling of exemption from liability against the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive, the bankrupt’s obligation becomes natural obligation and has the right to file a lawsuit that has ordinary claims, and thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights. 2) The Plaintiff asserts that

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 2, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant did not enter the claim of this case in the creditor list while filing a petition for bankruptcy.

However, the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone did not state the claim of this case in the creditor list in bad faith.