1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 24, 2003, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant on July 24, 2003 as interest rate of KRW 2% and due date of repayment on December 30, 2004.

(hereinafter “instant debt”). B.

(1) On July 30, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and immunity with the Changwon District Court No. 2009Hadan2485, 2009Da2486. The above court rendered a decision to grant immunity on July 1, 201, and the above decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “instant decision to grant immunity”).

(2) At the time of filing an application for bankruptcy and immunity, the Plaintiff omitted the instant obligation against the Defendant in the list of creditors.

C. On May 20, 2005, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff for the payment of the claim of this case. The above payment order was served on the defendant on July 1, 2005 and was finalized on July 16, 2005 (hereinafter "the payment order of this case").

(2) On July 15, 2015, the Defendant again filed an application for a loan payment order against the Plaintiff under the Changwon District Court Branch Branch 2015 tea 1184 for the purpose of extending the prescription period of the above claim. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the payment order and served as a claim for the loan payment order under the same court Order No. 2015No7629.

On October 23, 2015, the above court rendered a decision to recommend reconciliation that the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 30,000,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 12, 2015 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “decision to recommend reconciliation of this case”), and the above decision was finalized on November 24, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the chief executive officer of the agent delegated at the time when the Plaintiff’s list was prepared, omitted the instant claim by negligence, and thus, the effect of the decision on immunity of this case extends to the instant obligation, and sought confirmation of the exemption of the said obligation.

3. The case.