1. The part concerning the counterclaim against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) B of the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the counterclaim of this case is among the counterclaim of this case.

1. The first instance court rejected the part of the plaintiffs' claim for the confirmation of existence of the obligation among the plaintiffs' claims for the principal lawsuit, dismissed the remaining part of the claim for the principal lawsuit, and accepted all of the defendant's claims for the counterclaim against the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs did not appeal to the main part of the judgment of the first instance, but appealed only to the counterclaim part of the judgment of the first instance.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is not within the scope of the judgment of this court, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the counterclaim part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The part on the counterclaim against the plaintiff B

A. The part of the counterclaim claim against Plaintiff B among the counterclaim in this case is unlawful, since the claim for the principal and interest of loan under the above contract acceptance agreement against Plaintiff B is a property claim arising before the declaration of bankruptcy and the immunity decision against Plaintiff B is not effective.

B. According to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, a debtor who has been exempted from liability shall be exempted from all liability to the bankruptcy creditor except for dividends arising from bankruptcy procedures.

Here, exemption refers to the existence of an obligation itself, but it is not possible to compel the obligor to perform the obligation. Accordingly, when immunity on the obligor’s bankruptcy becomes final and conclusive, the exempted claim would lose the ability to file a lawsuit that has ordinary claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Even if the obligor stated only the original claim in the obligee’s list and did not separately state claims, such as interest, etc., incidental claims constitute non-exempt claims that are not entered in the obligee’s list in bad faith by the obligor.