1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. As the Plaintiff’s assertion on March 10, 2016 lent KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the borrowed amount of KRW 3,000,000 and delay damages.

B. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that the obligor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from the liability for all obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except for the distribution under the bankruptcy procedure.

Here, the discharge is the obligation itself, but it is the obligation not to enforce the performance to the bankrupt debtor.

Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a debtor in bankruptcy becomes final and conclusive, a claim that has been granted immunity would lose the capacity to file a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015).

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the defendant borrowed KRW 3,000,000 from the plaintiff on March 10, 2016 at the interest rate of 2% per month and repaid it on September 10, 2016, and C written a certificate of borrowed money with the effect that the above loan obligation is guaranteed by Eul, and the defendant filed bankruptcy and application for immunity on December 30, 2016 and received a decision of exemption on October 11, 2017 upon receiving the decision of exemption from liability on September 20, 2017, each of them is recognized.

The claim of KRW 3,00,000, which the plaintiff asserted that he lent to the defendant, constitutes a bankruptcy claim, which is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, and thus, the defendant was exempted from liability for

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit in the protection of rights due to the determination of the above immunity decision.

(B) On February 2, 201, there is no evidence that the Defendant knew the existence of the Plaintiff’s above claims and did not enter them in the list of creditors, even though the Defendant did not enter the Plaintiff’s above claims in the list of creditors submitted at the time of application for immunity.