1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of immunity in the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s Plaintiff on Seoul Central District Court, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 14, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement of KRW 15,137,831 (hereinafter “relevant case”) from the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 Ga group 506015, the Plaintiff’s debt to corporate banks B, a joint and several surety, on January 9, 2015, seeking reimbursement of KRW 15,137,831 (hereinafter “relevant case”).

On June 2, 2015, the court rendered a judgment without holding any pleadings (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”) that “the defendant (the plaintiff of this case) shall pay to the plaintiff (the plaintiff of this case) 155,137,831 won with 154,747,901 won per annum from January 9, 2015 to January 29, 2015, 12% per annum, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The defendant’s claim for indemnity against the plaintiff of this case, which was recognized in the judgment of this case, shall be referred to as “the claim of this case”).

B. On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the lower court of KRW 6860, 2014 at the 6860, 2014 at the bottom of KRW 2014, and was subject to the bankruptcy decision on October 5, 2015, and the decision to grant immunity on February 11, 2016 (hereinafter “the decision to grant immunity”). The instant decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on February 26, 2016.

The plaintiff only stated the claims for each of the loans of a bank, C, and D in the list of creditors at the time, but did not state the defendant's claims in this case.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 7, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not directly receive the documents related to the instant case, such as the instant judgment, and did not know the fact that the Defendant repaid a debt to an enterprise bank on behalf of the Defendant at the time the immunity decision was rendered, and that the instant judgment was rendered, the Plaintiff’s liability is exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debt Rehabilitation Act”), and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s liability is exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.