1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts to the purport that this part of the lawsuit is unlawful, since the decision on the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit became final and conclusive while the lawsuit in the trial is pending.

The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the obligor who has been exempted from the liability shall be exempted from all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors, except dividends pursuant to 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 bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, a claim that has ordinary claims shall lose the capacity to file a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Meanwhile, even if a bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application to grant immunity, unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the aforementioned Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is deemed to be public health, or there is no dispute between the parties, or the court is obvious in this court, and the Defendant filed an application for immunity and exemption with the Incheon District Court Decision No. 2017Hadan1906, 2017, Jan. 10, 2017; the Plaintiff’s claim to return the lease deposit to the obligee at the time, and the court announced the above decision to grant immunity to the obligee 28.