1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The lawsuit on the part of the claim for damages for delay extended in the trial shall be dismissed.

3...

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On April 8, 2005, the Plaintiff, who had operated the Plaintiff’s money lending business, lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant on July 8, 2005 by setting the Plaintiff’s business funds to due date.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was declared bankrupt and immunity, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and even if not, the extinctive prescription for the instant claim was completed as a commercial claim.

2. Determination as to the main defense (a claim for exemption)

A. The main text of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act of the defendant's bankruptcy and exemption from immunity (hereinafter "the Debtor Rehabilitation Act") provides that the debtor who is exempted from immunity is exempted from the liability for the whole amount of obligations owed to the bankruptcy creditor, except for dividends under the bankruptcy procedure.

The exemption here means that the obligation itself continues to exist, but it is not possible to enforce the performance to the bankrupt debtor.

Therefore, when a decision to grant immunity to a bankrupt debtor becomes final and conclusive, the claim exempted shall lose the ability to file a lawsuit with ordinary claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da28173, Sept. 10, 2015). According to the written evidence No. 5-1, No. 2, 3, and No. 1, the Defendant is declared bankrupt on Nov. 19, 2008 by Busan District Court Decision 2007Hau4776, Nov. 19, 2008, and at the same date, the fact that the decision to grant immunity by Busan District Court Decision 2007Ma4792, Dec. 10, 208 is recognized.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff lost the right to file a suit for the instant loan claims arising from the “reasons before the declaration of bankruptcy” and the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive.

I would like to say.

B. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that Article 566 subparag. 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act does not recognize the validity of immunity, on the ground that, upon the Defendant’s decision to grant immunity, the Plaintiff did not enter “the Plaintiff’s claim in bad faith” in the list of creditors.

August 18, 2015