A. On September 11, 2007, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the above goods price (hereinafter “the instant goods price”) and damages for delay on the ground that the Plaintiff, who had engaged in the manufacturing industry, such as the production of packing materials, gold-type withdrawal, etc., was supplied with synthetic resin equivalent to KRW 4,413,130,00.

On September 19, 2007, the above court made a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) to recommend the defendant to pay the price of the goods of this case, and the above decision on performance recommendation was finalized on October 25, 2007.

B. On October 20, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a bankruptcy and application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2008Hadan32587, 2008, 32587.

On December 5, 2008, the above court declared bankrupt and rendered a decision to grant immunity on March 19, 2009, and the above decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive on April 3, 2009.

The plaintiff did not include the defendant's claim for the price of the goods in the list of creditors at the time of bankruptcy and application for immunity.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant's claim for the price of the goods in this case against the plaintiff is a bankruptcy claim, and it was not stated in the list of creditors at the time the plaintiff's bankruptcy and immunity is filed

The Plaintiff’s liability was exempted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”), barring any special circumstance with respect to the exemption from immunity granted to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the decision on performance recommendation of this case should be rejected.

B. As to this, the Defendant knew of the existence of the claim for the price of the instant goods at the time of filing an application for bankruptcy or exemption, but failed to enter it in the creditor list in bad faith. Therefore, the proviso to Article 566 of the Act is applicable.