1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance, as to KRW 20,187,578 and KRW 14,083,762 among the Plaintiff, from November 19, 2013 to November 11, 2014.

1. Judgment as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan, the Defendant asserted that the instant claim was unlawful since the Defendant was declared bankrupt and exempted from the obligation to grant immunity. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant claim was unlawful, since the Defendant did not enter the instant loan obligations in the list of creditors in bad faith, and thus, the instant loan obligations do not become exempt from the obligation to grant immunity.

B. On April 8, 2009, the Defendant filed a petition for bankruptcy and immunity with the Changwon District Court 2009, 1158 and 2009Hadan1155 (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and immunity application”), and received a declaration of bankruptcy and exemption from immunity from the above court on August 9, 2010, and the said decision became final and conclusive on August 24, 2010.

However, the defendant did not enter the loan obligations against the plaintiff in the list of creditors submitted while filing the above bankruptcy and application for immunity (hereinafter the loan obligations of this case).

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and purport of the whole pleadings)

C. “Claims that are not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith” under Article 566 subparag. 7 of the former Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to cases where an obligor is aware of the existence of an obligation against a bankruptcy creditor before immunity is granted and fails to enter it in the list of creditors. Thus, if an obligor was unaware of the existence of an obligation, even if he was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, it does not constitute non-exempt claims under the same Act even if the obligor was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, but if the obligor was aware of the existence of the obligation, it constitutes non-exempt claims under the same Act

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49083, Oct. 14, 2010). The following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings.