A. On May 2, 2007, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (U.S. District Court Decision 2012Kadan38407) seeking the performance of the obligation arising from the guarantee of the promissory note (90 million won) issued on May 2, 2007.

On January 23, 2013, the above court rendered a judgment with respect to the above case that “A shall pay B KRW 90 million and delay damages therefor” (hereinafter “the judgment of this case,” and “the claim of this case”) and at that time the judgment became final and conclusive.

B. On the other hand, on July 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Incheon District Court (2012Hau 4302, 2012, 4298) and was declared bankrupt on October 18, 2013 by the said court, and was granted immunity on January 3, 2014 (hereinafter “instant immunity exemption”).

After January 18, 2014, the decision to grant immunity became final and conclusive, and the list of creditors attached to the above decision to grant immunity is not indicated in the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “A debtor shall be entitled to any property claim arising from a cause that occurred before the declaration of bankruptcy is declared bankrupt,” and Article 566 of the Act provides that “a debtor granted immunity shall be exempt from all of his/her obligations to bankruptcy creditors except for dividends arising from bankruptcy procedures: Provided, That a debtor granted immunity shall not be exempt from all of his/her obligations with respect to the following claims.” Thus, even if a bankruptcy claim is not entered in the list of creditors of the application for immunity, he/she shall be exempted from the effect of immunity unless it falls under any subparagraph of the proviso of Article 566 of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010):