1. The defendant's Suwon District Court 2017Gaon 1935 against the plaintiff 21,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty C borrowed KRW 21,00,000 from the Defendant around 2000, and the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed this.

(hereinafter referred to as the “joint and several sureties of this case”).

On September 28, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained bankruptcy and immunity (hereinafter “instant bankruptcy and immunity”) from the Busan District Court Decision 201Hau2331 and 201Hau2331, and the said decision became final and conclusive.

C. Regarding the bankruptcy and immunity of the instant case, the Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff based on the joint and several guarantee in the creditor list.

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the performance of the joint and several surety obligation of this case with the Suwon District Court KRW 2017Gauri1935, the said lawsuit was initiated by service by public notice, and the Defendant favorable judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) was rendered on August 25, 2017.

E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal subsequent to the instant judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. According to Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, an obligor who has been exempted from liability is exempted from all obligations to a bankruptcy creditor except distribution under the bankruptcy procedure. Thus, the obligor’s joint and several surety of the Plaintiff with respect to the Defendant was exempted from the obligation to compensate for the entire amount of the obligation to the bankruptcy creditor.

B. We find that there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff, prior to the bankruptcy and immunity of the instant case, knew of the existence of joint and several liability obligations against the Defendant, did not enter it in the creditor list in bad faith.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of the discharge of the obligation based on the joint and several guarantee of this case is reasonable.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.