A. On September 9, 2010, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the agreed amount with the Seoul Central District Court 2010Ga72064, and sentenced the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff of this case) to the effect that “The Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay the Plaintiff (the Defendant of this case) 120 million won with 5% per annum from September 1, 2006 to July 23, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” and the above judgment was finalized on October 2, 2010.

(B) The defendant's claim based on the above judgment is "the claim of this case".

On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff was granted immunity on February 23, 2012 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Da4960 (Declaration of Bankruptcy No. 2010Hadan4960) and became final and conclusive on March 9, 2012. In submitting the list of creditors in the above immunity procedure, the Plaintiff submitted the list of creditors and submitted the list of creditors, and stated only KRW 120,000,000, the principal of the instant judgment claim, and did not state damages for delay.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant, with regard to the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the financial institution as the execution bond of the instant judgment claim, was issued a seizure and collection order as Seoul Central District Court 2016TTT No. 110565.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case was also exempted according to the above decision of immunity.

In regard to this, the defendant did not have the opportunity to participate as a creditor in the above immunity procedure, and the plaintiff reported to be the principal of the judgment bond in this case as a discharge claim, and the damages for delay falls under the non-exclusive claim because the plaintiff knew the existence of the claim and omitted by negligence, and therefore, compulsory execution by the above judgment is justified

B. Articles 8 and 558(1) and 558(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”).