A. On October 31, 2012, Defendant (former C) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on a loan case as Seoul Central District Court 2012Gada114648.

On December 13, 2012, with respect to the foregoing case, mediation was concluded on the following: “The Plaintiff (the Plaintiff is the Defendant in the above loan case) paid KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant (the Plaintiff in the above loan case) until May 31, 2013; on the other hand, the unpaid amount shall be paid in addition to the annual interest rate of 20% from the date following the date of payment to the date of full payment.”

(B) The conciliation protocol prepared pursuant to it is hereinafter referred to as the “instant conciliation protocol”).

On August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Hadan8141, 2013Ma8141, which was declared bankrupt on December 16, 2013, and received the decision of exemption on September 15, 2015 (hereinafter “instant decision of exemption”), and the said decision of exemption became final and conclusive on October 1, 2015.

C. The list of creditors of the instant exemption decision contains the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff based on the instant protocol of mediation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 5, 14 to 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In other words, a bankruptcy claim against the debtor is not subject to the proviso of Article 566 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, and the right to institute a lawsuit and the executive force of an ordinary claim are extinguished.

According to the above facts of recognition, a claim based on the above judgment constitutes a bankruptcy claim as a property claim arising from a cause arising prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and thus, the plaintiff's obligation against the defendant is exempted by the confirmation of immunity decision against the plaintiff.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the conciliation protocol of this case against the plaintiff should be denied.