A. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff was granted immunity on June 21, 2016 upon filing a petition for bankruptcy and immunity.

(F) The Daegu District Court Decision 2015Hau497, 2015Hau497, 4497, hereinafter referred to as "the decision on immunity in this case").

On November 27, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on December 10, 2008 against the Plaintiff, claiming a loan of KRW 9,300,000 and damages for delay, which the Defendant lent to the Plaintiff on December 10, 208.

Accordingly, on December 18, 2018, “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 9,300,000 and 24% per annum from December 10, 2008 to the date of full payment” (the Daegu District Court Decision 2018Daga59728, hereinafter “the instant decision on performance recommendation”) was issued, and the said loan claim was served on the Plaintiff himself on December 21, 2018, and the said decision became final and conclusive on January 5, 2019.

C. At the time of the application for bankruptcy and exemption, the Plaintiff did not enter the instant loan claims in the list of creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Any property claim arising from the cause before the debtor is declared bankrupt, that is, a bankruptcy claim shall be exempt from the effect of immunity under Article 565 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, unless it falls under the case of the proviso of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), even if the decision to grant immunity on the bankrupt becomes final and conclusive and conclusive and is not entered in the list of creditors.

B. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant’s loan claims against the Plaintiff on the instant recommendation decision is a property claim arising from a cause arising before the declaration of bankruptcy, which constitutes a bankruptcy claim, and the decision to grant immunity against the Plaintiff has lost its executive force upon confirmation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s above is against the Plaintiff.