2. The Defendant’s reimbursement against the Plaintiff is the Seoul Central District Court 2015dan161986.

2. Determination

A. According to the above fact of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case shall not be permitted inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant was discharged according to the decision of immunity of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and its determination 1) The Plaintiff did not enter the Defendant’s assertion in the list of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings by negligence while knowing the existence of the Defendant’s obligation against the Defendant. The Defendant’s claim constitutes non-exempt claims) and the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

Article 423 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that "a claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy against a debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim," and Article 566 of the same Act provides that "a debtor who has received immunity shall be exempted from liability for all debts to a bankruptcy creditor except dividends under the bankruptcy procedure: Provided, That a bankruptcy claim shall not be exempted from liability for all debts to the bankruptcy creditor." Thus, even if it is not entered in the list of creditors in the application for immunity, unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 566 (proviso) above, the effect of immunity shall be exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3353, May 13, 2010). Meanwhile, Article 566 subparagraph 7 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides that "a claim that is not entered in the list of creditors in bad faith," and Article 566 (b) of the same Act provides that "a debtor shall prove that he/she was not entered in the list of creditors despite being aware of the existence of debts."