1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the return of the part of the fee that the Defendant received while serving as the Plaintiff’s insurance solicitor from December 9, 2009 to February 1, 201, the Defendant received a decision to grant immunity on February 24, 2016, and thus, the instant lawsuit asserted that the benefit of protection of rights is unlawful.

Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “The debtor shall be entitled to any property claim arising from a cause before bankruptcy is declared bankrupt,” and Article 566 of the same Act provides that “The debtor exempted shall be exempted from all of his/her obligations to the bankruptcy creditors except for dividends arising from bankruptcy proceedings: Provided, That this shall not apply to any of the following claims.” Thus, even if a bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, it shall be exempted from the effect of immunity unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of the proviso of Article 566 of the Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). In addition, the term “Immunity” means that even if the debtor continues to exist in itself, it is impossible to enforce the performance to the bankruptcy debtor:

Therefore, when a decision to exempt a debtor from liability becomes final and conclusive, the claim that has been discharged would lose the ordinary capacity to file a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). Meanwhile, “claim that is not entered in the creditors’ list in bad faith” under Article 566 proviso 7 of the Act refers to a case where the debtor knowingly knows the existence of the obligation against the bankruptcy creditor prior to the decision to grant immunity and fails to enter it in the creditors’ list. Therefore, when the debtor was negligent in not knowing the existence of the obligation, the above Act is applicable.